In unprecedented ruling, court lets Israeli Arab visit an enemy state: Haaretz
The High Court of Justice on Tuesday granted permission for Israeli Arab writer Ala Halihal to visit Beirut, despite opposition from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Interior Minister Eli Yishai.
Generally, it is forbidden for Israeli citizens to visit Lebanon, considered by Israel to be an enemy state. According to the petitioners, this High Court decision marks the “first time since 1948 that an Israeli citizen is permitted to visit a state defined as an enemy state.”
In their decision, the justices said that the there is no existing information to negate the petitioner’s claim, adding that in their refusal to approve his travel, the authorities did not weigh all the relevant considerations in this unique case, the ruling said.
The court ruled after Netanyahu on Monday refused to allow Halihal to attend an international conference of Arab authors in Beirut. The court had asked Netanyahu for his response to Halihal’s petition requesting to overturn Yishai’s refusal to allow him to travel to Beirut.
Halihal’s petition was submitted by the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel. The attorneys argued that the government’s refusal to allow Halihal to travel violates his constitutional right to leave the country and his rights for freedom of employment and freedom of expression, as well as his due process rights for a fair hearing.
The petition was submitted by Adalah Attorneys Haneen Naamnih and Hassan Jabareen.
Halihal on Monday traveled to London to await the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Halihal is a Palestinian Arab citizen of Israel. He was born in the village of Jish in the Galilee in the north and lives currently in Acre.
Sarkozy: Israel strike against Iran would be disastrous: Haaretz
French President Nicolas Sarkozy told the American news network CBS on Tuesday that an Israeli military attack against Iran would be “disastrous” and that Israel must understand that “we are determined to ensure its security.”
Hours before U.S. President Barack Obama opened a landmark summit of 47 nations on nuclear security in Washington, Sarkozy told CBS’s Katie Couric that “I would not want the world to wake up to a conflict between Israel and Iran, quite simply because the international community has been incapable of acting.”
“I consider the fact that Iran should get its hands on a nuclear weapon – a military nuclear weapon…dangerous and unacceptable. Unacceptable, quite simply. President Obama has wanted to stretch out his hand in order to show clearly to the Iranians that it was not they who were the target, but their leadership,” Sarkozy went on to say.
Advertisement
When asked whether he thought sanctions could really deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the French president replied that “I believe in the effect of sanctions, because I’ve been very impressed by the courage of the Iranian people. Those young kids, those women who went down into the streets of Tehran and major Iranian cities. What a fantastic example of courage they gave us…We can’t afford to be less courageous than they were.”
Following talks between Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao, Obama’s top China adviser Jeffery Bader said that China shares U.S. concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, and that the country had agreed to direct its officials to work on a United Nations sanctions resolution against Tehran.
Bader added that Obama and Hu, meeting on the sidelines of the nuclear security summit, talked at length about Iran and discussed nuclear non-proliferation.
Obama stressed to Hu the need to act urgently against Iran’s nuclear program, and Hu agreed that Beijing would help craft a UN resolution, Bader said.
The White House had hoped the one-on-one meeting would help determine whether China was serious about moving forward with the United States, Britain, France, Russia and Germany in forging a new round of UN sanctions on Iran.
“The resolution will make clear to Iran the cost of pursuing a nuclear program that violates Iran’s obligations and responsibilities,” Bader told reporters after the meeting. “The Chinese are actively at the table in New York.”
Bader said the two presidents agreed that their delegations should work on a Security Council resolution on a new round of Iran sanctions “and that’s what we’re doing.”
Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said the United States still expects a UN resolution by this spring.
Bader said Obama’s meeting with Hu “was a sign of international unity” on Iran. Western powers want to deter Iran from what they see as a drive to develop nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists its program has only peaceful, civilian purposes.
China, which holds veto power in the Security Council, had recently shown an increased willingness to pressure Iran while signaling it remained reluctant to take some of the toughest measures proposed by Washington and other Western powers.
Iran on Tuesday expressed doubts that China will back the U.S. and European drive for renewed sanctions.
Following the meeting, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said that President Hu had told Obama in “positive and constructive” talks on Monday that Beijing wanted to resolve bilateral economic friction through consultations.
China and the United States also “share the same overall goal on the Iranian nuclear issue,” Ma said in a written statement after the two leaders met on the sidelines of a nuclear security summit in Washington. Ma provided no details on the talks and repeated China’s standard call for “dialogue and negotiations” with Iran.
Speaking to reporters afterwards, Obama made no mention of his talks with Hu but said he expects the 47-nation summit to make progress toward locking down loose nuclear material.
“It’s impressive. I think it’s an indication of how deeply concerned everybody should be with the possibilities of nuclear traffic, and I think at the end of this we’re going to see some very specific, concrete actions that each nation is that will make the world a little bit safer,” Obama said.
Speaking to ABC’s Good Morning America on Monday, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev said that while he supported sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program he felt those sanctions should not harm the Iranian people.
On the subject of imitating new sanctions against Iran geared at forcing it to abandon its nuclear program, the Russian president said that “it’s not whether it’s a good thought or bad thought, I’m talking about something else.”
“The sanctions is a tricky thing which works seldomly. You yourself were busy with politics, and you know that sanctions is not without conditions,” Medvedev said, adding but sometimes you have to do that.”
“What kind of sanctions? We have spoken about that with President Obama yesterday. Sanctions should be effective and they should be smart,” the Russian President said.
“They should not lead to humanitarian catastrophe, and the whole Iranian community would start to hate the whole world. And we’re worried that there are a significant number of people which have radical opinions. Do we want that radical thought to be sent to the whole world?,” Medvedev said.
However, the Russian president did not rule sanctions altogether, saying that they “should be smart.”
“They should force or obligate the Iranian leadership to think about what’s next. What could sanctions be? It could be trade, arms trade. It could be other sanctions,” Medvedev said, adding that “sanctions should let the country understand that all who impose sanctions have the same opinion.”
Medvedev said that any new sanctions “should not be paralyzing. They should not cause suffering. Aren’t we in the 21st century? That’s why if we’re going to develop our cooperation in this direction we have a chance to succeed. Better would be to go without sanctions and achieve things politically.
Earlier Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad condemned Obama’s nuclear summit, calling it humiliating to humanity.
Israel warns citizens to leave Sinai amid terror fears: BBC
Tens of thousands of Israelis routinely holiday in the Sinai
Israel has issued an “urgent” warning to its citizens to leave Sinai in Egypt amid fears of a terrorist plot.
The prime minister’s office said it had “concrete evidence” that terrorists were planning to attempt to kidnap Israelis in the peninsula.
Israel took the unusual step of calling on families of the Israelis who are visiting Sinai to contact them.
It fears that Palestinian militants will transfer hostages to Gaza through tunnels under the border.
Leave immediately and return home
Israeli anti-terror office
The warning by Israel’s security agencies came after a rumour that an Israeli had been kidnapped in Sinai. The Israeli emergency service Zaka later said that rumour was untrue.
“According to concrete intelligence, we anticipate an immediate terror activity to kidnap an Israeli in Sinai,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said on Tuesday.
Tens of thousands of Israelis routinely take holidays in Sinai over the Passover holiday. Most have returned after the week-long festival.
A few hundred were reported to have remained.
Egyptian police have been searching Sinai for any missing Israelis but found no evidence that anyone was missing.
Past attacks
In unusually strong wording, the Israeli anti-terror office called on “all Israelis residing in Sinai to leave immediately and return home”.
Families of Israelis in the peninsula were urged to contact them and update them on the travel warning.
Israel’s anti-terror office has a standing travel advisory telling Israelis to stay out of the Sinai desert because of the threat of terror attacks.
In 2004, suicide bombers attacked Egypt’s Taba Hilton Hotel, just across the Israeli border, and several campsites popular with Israelis. Dozens of people were killed and hundreds wounded.
Israel controlled Sinai from its capture in the 1967 war until returning it to Egypt in 1982. The desert is just across the border, and its seaside resorts are popular with Israelis.
Sinai has been the scene of number of terrorist attacks, including bombings in the resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh in 2005 and Dahab in 2006, which killed dozens.
Palestinian militants killed in clashes in Gaza: BBC
Palestinian mourners carry the body of an Islamic Jihad militant
At least two Palestinian militants died and three were hurt in an Israeli army strike in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli army and Palestinian medics said.
The clash took place near the Kissufim border crossing in central Gaza.
The Israeli military says it hit a group of Palestinians laying explosives near Gaza’s perimeter fence.
Islamic Jihad, a radical Islamist group, said the Israeli troops entered the Gaza Strip and fired from a helicopter and tanks.
The body of a 23-year-old Islamic Jihad fighter was taken to a Gaza hospital immediately after the fighting.
A second body was later retrieved from the area, it was reported.
The Israeli military said it believed four militants were killed and claimed they were armed with explosives, grenades and assault rifles, the Associated Press news agency reported.
The Israeli military released a photograph of the weapons it said were found.
Gaza medics said only two bodies had been retrieved.
There has been an unsteady ceasefire since Israel ended its assault on Gaza in January 2009.
Palestinians and rights groups say more than 1,400 Gazans died in the conflict, while Israel puts the figure at 1,166. Thirteen Israelis, including three civilians, were killed.
Factions like Islamic Jihad have continued to fire rockets and mortar shells into southern Israel.
Last month a Thai farm worker in Israel was killed by a rocket fired from Gaza – the first such death in a year.
Over roughly the same period, about 90 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed in a mixture of Israeli military operations and border clashes, according to the UN.
Hamas says it has been trying to keep attacks on Israel in check.
Islamic Jihad said that on Sunday police had detained several of its fighters, along with those from another group, and forced them to sign pledges that they would not engage in attacks on Israel, the Associated Press reported.
Jerusalem: heart of conflict, beginning of reconciliation: The Electronic Intifada
Rifat Odeh Kassis, 13 April 2010
For me — as for most Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian — Jerusalem is the city I love the most and visit the least. As a boy, I remember traveling to Jerusalem with my late father along the old road — a trip that took many hours due to the “no-man’s zone” that forbade us from directly accessing the city. Despite the obstacles that existed even then, I remember going to Jerusalem as a deeply happy event. It meant eating the sweets we couldn’t find in our village, and visiting the holy places we’d only heard about in school and church. Or else it meant going to the doctor, since most doctors were based in Jerusalem at that time. In any case, my sentimental relationship with the city is strong.
During the 1980s, I worked at the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) in Jerusalem, and I drove to the office by car every morning. However, when the first Palestinian intifada broke out in 1987, Jerusalem was sealed off to those of us who lived in the occupied West Bank, and we had to obtain special permits in order to enter the city. Legally visiting Jerusalem became impossible for me. Due to my past as a political prisoner, I was put on some kind of state blacklist, and so the Israeli authorities wouldn’t grant me a permit. For some years, I did manage to enter from time to time — until, that is, Israel began construction of the “separation wall,” at which point all entrances were closed to me. Since 2002, I have not returned. My 25-year-old son, Dafer, has never been to Jerusalem at all, although he has probably traveled half the world. Being barred from Jerusalem is a great loss to me and to my family.
While I must invariably address my relationship with Jerusalem in these ways — in the voice of the child I was, the father I am — I also wish to address Jerusalem’s many symbolic meanings for myself and for others: for Palestinian Christians in our struggle for religious freedom. For Palestinians in general, in our struggle for political self-determination. And for Christians and Muslims and Jews, so often locked in conflict over a place that should in fact be a model of reconciliation.
For Palestinian Christians, Jerusalem is full not only of symbolic richness, but also of symbolic tensions. First of all, although Jerusalem is considered universally sacred for Christians all over the world — the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, the birthplace of Christianity itself, the site of the first churches, the historical destination of pilgrimages — it is in many ways a normal city for us Palestinians. It is our political capital, and has traditionally been an economic hub, a center of tourism, health services and education. In this sense, then, my relation to Jerusalem as a Palestinian Christian is twofold: it is, for me, both the universal sacred place where people go to pray and connect to the holy sites and the capital of my country, Palestine, even when the occupying state doesn’t acknowledge it as such. Even more powerfully, however, Jerusalem is the universal sacred place I cannot go to practice my faith, and the capital city I cannot visit.
Yet Jerusalem is also a focal point of the Palestinian struggle, the place where our struggle began and where it will end.
According to international law, East Jerusalem is occupied territory, as are the parts of the West Bank that Israel unilaterally annexed to the district of Jerusalem. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907 forbid occupying powers from altering the ways of life of occupied citizens; they likewise prohibit members of the occupying state from settling in the occupied territory.
Israel’s actions in East Jerusalem, throughout history as well as today, constitute gross violations of international law. The violations themselves are copious and ongoing: historical expropriation (since 1967 and through the present day) of private Palestinian-owned land, paving the way for illegal Israeli settlements (referred to as “neighborhoods” in Israeli discourse); demolitions of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem (in 2009 alone 47 houses were destroyed, leaving 256 people homeless); discriminatory housing permit policies, in the sense that nearly 10 times as many building permits are issued to Jews in West Jerusalem than to Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem; Israel’s “quiet transfer” policy, revoking the residency of East Jerusalemites who moved from municipal borders (1,363 revocations in 2006, a 300 percent increase from the previous year); and countless others.
What transpires in Jerusalem, then, is a shocking abuse of power, a systematic, ongoing and flagrantly illegal usurpation of Palestinian property and autonomye. When we speak of Jerusalem, we must speak not only of the Old City and the sacred sites, but also of the Jerusalemites themselves. The streets and houses are synonymous with the people who live and work and raise their children there. The holy places are synonymous with the people praying within them. The city itself is also synonymous with all the people who are forcibly prevented from doing so.
In this way, the physical Jerusalem — from land to houses to holy sites — becomes the grounds on which both practical and symbolic struggles are carried out. Israel is not simply trying to find its place in Jerusalem; rather, it is trying to monopolize Jerusalem (again, on both quotidian levels and on universal, sacred ones) and exclude Palestinian Christians and Muslims from the city. For us Palestinians, Jerusalem is a city for all three faiths: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Its preciousness should not be stifled, and its holiest symbols — like the al-Aqsa Mosque for Muslims, or the Wailing Wall for Jews — all deserve their existence in this universal city. Any attempt to monopolize them is an attempt to monopolize that universality, and this is an effort we (meaning all peoples) must resist.
These beliefs are articulated in the Kairos document, the Christian Palestinians’ statement to the world about the occupation of Palestine and a call for support in opposing it. The document’s position on Jerusalem and its significance to Christians echoes the statement issued by the Heads of Churches published in 1994 and the second one in 2006. Many tend to think that Jerusalem is only important for Muslims and Jews; the document stresses its equal importance for Christians. The Kairos document addresses Jerusalem both from a specifically Palestinian Christian perspective and from a universal human perspective. We state very clearly that Jerusalem, and particularly East Jerusalem, is an occupied city; that the occupation of Jerusalem is a sin against God and humanity; that it constitutes a defiance of His will as well as that of the international community.
In the Kairos Document, we also stress that Jerusalem should be the place of and model for reconciliation, while in actuality it’s the locus of and reason for our conflict. Thus, we believe that the issue of Jerusalem should be the beginning of our reconciliation, and should absolutely not be left to the so-called “final” items on the negotiation agenda. Resolving the conflict over Jerusalem first will establish a model for the two nations themselves, as well as for resolving other conflicts between them; it will also encourage the growth and development of a just peace in our region.
The document highlights many other central concerns that help us illustrate and expand our discussion of Jerusalem. For one thing, we address (and condemn) the many theological justifications of the Israeli occupation that appear in some theologies. We believe that these justifications are nothing short of hearsay, and that they distort the true Christian teachings; we reject the arguments of those who attach Biblical legitimacy to the violation of our rights. We also emphasize the right of the oppressed to resist oppression — on our independent terms and in our local context. The Kairos Document calls on Palestinian Christians (both here in Palestine and all around the world) to change the current reality, and calls on Israel to stop its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Jerusalem by means of house demolitions and land confiscation.
The Kairos document reminds Jews, Muslims and Christians alike that Jerusalem should be the place where God reconciles with his people and where the creatures of God reconcile with each other. And it affirms the equal importance of Jerusalem for the Palestinian people, whether Christian or Muslim. This affirmation, this unity of vision — not in the sense that everyone must share the same beliefs, but in the sense that the freedom to believe must always be shared — is the document’s greatest strength.
The fate of Jerusalem is the fate of the conflict itself. No matter the shape of a final resolution, Palestinians must have the right to exert their sovereignty in East Jerusalem. And as the Kairos Document urges, the very nature of Jerusalem — universal, sacred and embracing — must be honored as we proceed.
Rifat Kassis is International President of Defence for Children International (DCI) and General Director of its section in Palestine. He is also Coordinator and Spokesperson of Kairos Palestine – A Moment of Truth.
EDITOR: Jews Back Obama on Israel
It seems that despite the frenetic and hysterical anti-Obama propaganda emanation from Jerusalem and from AIPAC, most US Jews have not fallen for the crude arguments of Zionism on this count, though elsewhere they buy into such arguments easily. AIPAC and Netanyahu assumed they will be able to frighten Obama on this issue, but now he knows he does not have to worry. Let us see what he does next.
Poll: Most U.S. Jews approve of Obama’s approach to Israel: Haaretz
Despite claims that that Israelis are wary of U.S. President Barack Obama, a new poll released on Tuesday shows that most American Jews view their leader and his dealings with Israel in a positive light.
According to the 2010 Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion, conducted by the American Jewish Committee, 73 percent of American Jews characterize relations between Israel and the U.S. today as “very positive” or “positive.”
In addition to this, 55 percent of American Jews approve of the way the Obama administration is handling U.S.-Israel relations.
Advertisement
In polls quoted in a New York Times article by former American Jewish Congress national director Henry Siegman from a few months prior, Obama is supported by only between 6 to ten percent of the Israeli public.
Despite American Jews’ positive outlook on Obama and Israel-U.S. relations, their expectations for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is less optimistic with 72 percent of respondent saying their view on an improvement in the situation has remain unchanged since the previous year.
The majority of those polled agreed that the goal of Arabs is the “destruction of the state of Israel,” with 80 percent believing peace cannot be achieved with a Hamas-led Palestinian government.
On the subject of Iran, American Jews are almost equally divided for and against the way the Obama administration is handling the issue of a nuclear Iran with 62 percent of respondents saying they would support Israel taking military action against Iran.
Grassroots organizer targeted by PA, Israeli forces: The Electronic Intifada
Nora Barrows-Friedman, 13 April 2010
Mousa Abu Maria, father of a newborn baby and co-coordinator of the grassroots Palestine Solidarity Project (PSP) in the occupied West Bank village of Beit Ommar, was used to the sound of boots running on the ground and surrounding his home in the middle of the night. Awakened once again at 2:00am on Tuesday, 6 April, Abu Maria told an international volunteer with PSP who was sleeping in his house not to worry but that they should start moving the computers out of the rooms. Weeks earlier, PSP’s office was raided by Israeli forces; computer hard drives and printers were confiscated as Abu Maria’s entire family was forced to stand outside in the freezing cold. But when Abu Maria looked outside the window this time, it wasn’t Israeli forces shouting at him to come outside. It was a squadron of heavily-armed Palestinian Authority (PA) police.
“They told me that they needed to talk with me for just one hour,” Abu Maria told EI on the phone from Beit Ommar. “But they kidnapped me, forced me into a jeep, and took me to the Hebron police station where they held me until the next afternoon. They acted exactly like Israeli soldiers, accusing me of hitting a police officer during a demonstration — a totally fabricated claim.”
PSP has been instrumental in coordinating weekly demonstrations in front of Route 60, the “settler road” that runs alongside Beit Ommar and connects Jerusalem to the settlement colonies in the Bethlehem/Hebron area, and Abu Maria has borne the brunt of Israeli backlash for his involvement in the group’s nonviolent direct actions. He was abducted by Israeli forces in April 2008 and held in administrative detention — without charges or conviction — for an entire year. “In total, I’ve spent seven years in Israeli prisons on three separate occasions because of my work to challenge the illegal Israeli occupation,” Abu Maria said. Members of his family, including his brother, Youssef, have also faced harsh Israeli prison sentences because of their organizing and involvement with civil disobedience actions in the village.
But on 6 April, Abu Maria said that he was made to wait in the Hebron PA police’s detention facility overnight. Phone calls from Palestinian community leaders, Israeli activists and internationals poured into the PA government offices headquartered in Ramallah demanding a reason for the arrest and calling for Abu Maria’s immediate release. The following afternoon, still held at the police station, Abu Maria said he began to receive a deluge of apologies from police officials, including the head of the Palestinian police department in Hebron who reportedly kissed Abu Maria on the head as he left the station. “They said they made a mistake, and didn’t need me for questioning,” Abu Maria told EI. “I told them that they should be ashamed for acting like Israeli soldiers, and that if they needed to talk to me, they can meet me in a normal way — there is no reason to arrest their own people in the middle of the night and terrify Palestinians like this.”
Local Palestinian media jumped on the story, since it directly highlights the narrowing differences between the actions of Israeli and PA forces operating in the West Bank. As the PA continues to solidify its militarized presence on the ground in the West Bank — sending its forces to train with US General Keith Dayton in Amman, Jordan, for internal “counter-insurgency” techniques that are consequentially used against leaders and activists within opposing political parties — many Palestinians are growing increasingly cynical of the ability of the administration of PA president Mahmoud Abbas to represent all elements of Palestinian civil society in a fair and just way. “They should represent Palestine and its people. I’d respect them if they were working for the Palestinian cause, for the justice that we all deserve,” Abu Maria remarked. “But they made me respect the PA even less after what happened to me.”
The PA, meanwhile, has recently announced that it has started a campaign to target Israeli settlement products sold within the occupied West Bank. Appointed PA Prime Minister, and former World Bank official, Salam Fayyad launched the campaign with a public bonfire of one million dollars worth of products made in settlements on 5 January 2010. Days later, Fayyad set up a “National Dignity Fund” aimed at supporting locally-grown produce available for distribution in the local and global market. The PA has also started showing up at anti-occupation demonstrations, notably in Bilin, in a campaign marketed as a show of support and solidarity with local grassroots organizers.
However, many Palestinian organizers are skeptical of the PA’s show of interest in grassroots initiatives like the burgeoning boycott campaigns and regular demonstrations around the West Bank. Jamal Juma’, co-coordinator of the Stop the Wall campaign, told EI that these actions by the PA are marked by hypocrisy, especially in light of the parallel, violent crackdowns by PA forces against other Palestinian parties like Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and independent organizers like Mousa Abu Maria. Additionally, the PA enjoys the continued flow of money and political cooperation from the US, the EU and Israel.
“It’s confusing,” Juma’ said. “The PA is talking about supporting the popular resistance struggle, and they’ve started a campaign to boycott the products from settlements in the West Bank. These are things we totally support as a people and as a movement. On the other hand, the PA has its own limits. They obviously don’t want certain demonstrations and actions to go beyond their control.”
Juma’ told EI that the PA’s move to boycott settlement products, for instance, still doesn’t address the underlying need to stop the settlements themselves. “This is a part of the PA’s entrenched program of normalization [with the Israeli occupation],” he said. “We as Palestinian civil society cannot afford normalization by the Authority. We won’t accept it. The PA should complement the activities of the grassroots movements that are working very hard to expand the popular resistance, not limit them.”
At the same time, a new Israeli military law aimed at arresting and deporting tens of thousands of Palestinians, internationals who have married Palestinians and Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who live with their spouses inside the West Bank, may go into effect soon. Veteran Israeli journalist Amira Hass wrote last weekend in the Israeli daily Haaretz: “The new order is the latest step by the Israeli government in recent years to require permits that limit the freedom of movement and residency previously conferred by Palestinian ID cards. The new regulations are particularly sweeping, allowing for criminal measures and the mass expulsion of people from their homes.”
Juma’ says that this could be a perfect time for the PA to support direct confrontation against this extremely racist military order, as Palestinian committees are gearing up to do. “The PA has condemned the law, but we don’t need condemnation,” Juma’ stressed. “We need them to take practical actions on the ground. They should freeze coordination with the Israelis. They have to do something. The PA should understand and remember that they are not exempt from Israel’s target.”
On Saturday, 10 April, Mousa Abu Maria was arrested once again — this time by Israeli occupation forces — during a regular, pre-planned demonstration in Beit Ommar. Along with nine other Palestinian and Israeli protesters, he was taken to the military compound inside Gush Etzion, the nearby Israeli settlement colony, and held in jail until yesterday. The Israeli protesters were released on the condition that they not enter Beit Ommar for two weeks, and the Palestinians were bailed out by local Palestinian committees, Israeli human rights groups and their families. Undeterred, Abu Maria told EI that the demonstrations will continue as long as Israel’s occupation and its apartheid regime continue to uproot peoples’ lives all over Palestine.
Nora Barrows-Friedman is the co-host and Senior Producer of Flashpoints, a daily investigative newsmagazine on Pacifica Radio. She is also a correspondent for Inter Press Service. She regularly reports from Palestine, where she also runs media workshops for youth in the Dheisheh refugee camp in the occupied West Bank.
Israeli W Bank ID policy criticised: Al Jazeera Online
The Palestinian prime minister has sharply criticised a new Israeli military order that could allow the army to expel tens of thousands of Palestinians from their homes.
Salam Fayyad condemned the order on Tuesday, saying the threat to expel Palestinians lacking proper identification from the West Bank is “in every way illegal”.
“The military order that seeks to deport Palestinians and/or subject them to prosecution on the grounds of being without proper residency – this is something that in every way is illegal,” including under international law, he said.
“It’s something that definitely has to be rescinded. I mention it as an example of the latest form of adversity that is associated with (the) occupation regime.”
Palestinian ‘infiltrators’
The new legislation, signed off six months ago and due to be implemented on Tuesday, amends an existing order from 1969 to prevent infiltration into the country.
The military policy now stipulates that all Palestinians in the occupied West Banknot carrying what Israel deems a valid identity card can be classified as “infiltrators”, and as such, could face deportation or up to seven years in prison.
The Israeli military order does not specify what would be accepted as valid identification.
Rights groups have also criticised the order, saying it has sparked fear of arrest amongst Palestinians.
Sari Bashi, the executive director of the Gisha Legal Centre for Freedom of Movement, an Israeli civil liberties group in Tel Aviv, said the order gives a green light to Israeli soldiers to arrest Palestinians.
“This is part of a series of steps implemented by Israel to empty the West Bank of Palestinians, especially by removing them to Gaza,” she told Al Jazeera.
“There are tens of thousands of people at risk, who pose no security threat whatsoever – they’re just trying to lead their lives.
“Turning them into criminals – making it criminal for them to be present in their own home – is tearing away at the fabric of life in the West Bank.”
“There is no protection here – the opposite, for the first time the military is declaring it a crime for a Palestinian resident to be present in one part of the Palestinian territory.”
‘Safeguarding’ Palestinians
But Israel has defended the policy.
Mark Regev, a spokesman for the Israeli government, denied that the amended measure was aimed at expelling Palestinians, and said it would safeguard their rights.
Israeli columnist assesses new policy that could result in tens of thousands of evictions
“What we’ve done here is we’ve strengthened the rights of people who face such deportation by creating … an independent judicial oversight mechanism, which makes sure there are checks and balances and that the legal rights of people are protected,” he told Al Jazeera.
Under the old order, those served with deportation orders could be deported the same day, whereas the new amendments provide a 72-hour appeal period, he said.
The controversial aspect of the measure, however, arises from the vague language now used to define an infiltrator, as reported by Israel’s Haaretz newspaper on Sunday.
“The order’s language is both general and ambiguous, stipulating that the term infiltrator will also be applied to Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, citizens of countries with which Israel has friendly ties [such as the United States] and Israeli citizens, whether Arab or Jewish,” Haaretz said.
“All this depends on the judgement of Israel defence forces commanders in the field.”
Meridor: Israel’s 2 nuke reactors are safe: YNet
Minister representing Israel in US nuclear convention tells Ynet event not turning into quarrel between Israel and Muslims; Israel has two nuclear reactors and operates them in an orderly manner, he says
The nuclear conference held in Washington is not turning into a clash between Israel and Muslim states as some observers expected, Minister for Intelligence Affairs Dan Meridor told Ynet Tuesday.
Meridor is heading the Israeli delegation to the conference, after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cancelled his planned trip to Washington.
“I regret to disappoint those who expected clashes against Israel in the summit,” he said. “The atmosphere here is good, both in the speeches and in talks on the margins of the conference.”
The minister also declared that Israel maintains two nuclear reactors at this time and ensures their safe operation.
“Israel has two nuclear reactors that contain hazardous materials,” he said. “We have been operating them in an orderly manner for years now to ensure protection against nuclear dangers.”
The major threat: Iran
In its concluding statement, as expected, Israel focused on the Iranian nuclear threat, without explicitly referring to Tehran:
“The greatest threat to peace is that the world’s most dangerous regimes and the world’s most dangerous terror groups would acquire the world’s most dangerous weapons,” Israel’s statement read. “Over the last three decades, we have seen an alarming increase in the risk of this threat materializing, especially in the Middle East.”
“This threat has been magnified by the possibility that terror supporting states developing nuclear weapons might give these weapons and other nuclear materials to their non-state proxies in the hope of avoiding culpability for their actions.
“Israel acutely understands this threat because a regime that illicitly seeks nuclear weapons and openly calls for Israel’s destruction is supporting terror proxies that continuously attack Israel’s civilians with missiles, rockets and other means.”