A Middle East peace that wreaks havoc: The Guardian
With the odds stacked so strongly in Israel’s favour, Palestinians rightly view the US talks with dread
Ghada Karmi
What an irony that the Palestinians’ arch-enemy, Israel, should also be their saviour. There is a real danger that the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks due to starton September 2 in Washington could yield a botched deal that falls far short of the needs of international law or elemental justice, and sets back the cause of Palestine for decades, if not for ever. Fortunately this will not happen as long as Israel’s obduracy can be relied on to save the Palestinians from such an outcome.
Time and again, when Israel was thrown a lifeline by Arab neighbours that could have ensured its legitimacy and security, its folly and greed lost it those opportunities. But, since they came at great cost to Palestinian rights, Israel’s obduracy had the perverse effect of safeguarding those rights. All peace proposals after 1967 were based on maintaining Israel as a regional power and forcing the Palestinians to settle for less than they were entitled to. They were repeatedly offered paltry settlements that legitimised Israel’s hold on most of their land and undermined their right of return. Had Israel agreed, the Palestinian cause would have been lost long ago.
When in the 1979 Camp David negotiations Egypt sought to give the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza a basis for a future independent state, Israel refused. It spurned a succession of Arab peace proposals, most recently the Saudi plan of 2002, offering Israel peace and recognition in return for a Palestinian state. And when, in the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PLO finally capitulated and accepted Israel’s occupation of Palestine’s remnants so long as it would enable the establishment of an independent state on this morsel, Israel responded by taking more land.
Decades of Israeli rejection and the reality of Israel’s western support finally persuaded the Palestinian leadership to get what it could. Where once Palestinians fought against dispossession and for their right to reparation and return, today’s browbeaten leadership has settled for a set of aspirations that bear little relation to rights or justice. It is this defeated leadership, reportedly under US pressure to attend or have Palestinian Authority funding withdrawn, which will take part in the talks.
The aim is a two-state settlement, which will supposedly end the conflict. The parameters are familiar from past (and, failed) peace proposals, and grossly unfair to the Palestinians. Historic Palestine will be partitioned roughly along the 1967 lines into a Jewish state on 78% of the land, plus an undefined area of the West Bank also to become Israeli, and a Palestinian state on the remainder – less than 20%. How much of East Jerusalem will go to the Palestinians has not been determined, and there will be no return of refugees.
Israel’s prime minister has set conditions before the talks. Israel will keep the Jordan Valley, Jerusalem will remain Israel’s undivided capital, and the Palestinian state must be unarmed, with its borders and airspace under surveillance. Nothing will happen unless the Palestinians first recognise Israel as Jewish and guarantee its security.
Despite such preliminaries, the indications are that Israel is not serious about a deal. Its moratorium on settlement building, which in any case excluded East Jerusalem, will end on 27 September. Israeli commentators are sceptical about Binyamin Netanyahu’s intentions. Moty Cristal, a former Israeli prime ministerial adviser, believes he “is buying time, looking for ways to stay away from action on the ground”. Nonetheless, President Obama, with mid-term elections looming, lacking a foreign policy success and focused on Iran, is determined to see a result.
How could that be achieved, within the constraints of an Israel that cannot be pressured and a weak, unrepresentative Palestinian leadership that excludes Gaza and Hamas? And since Israel’s position rejects all the main Palestinian requirements – land, Jerusalem, refugees – progress, if any, can only be made by demanding more concessions from the weaker side. This will mean less land available for the putative Palestinian state, reducing its viability. Hence Jordan’s and Egypt’s presence at the talks to work out a deal that provides an extension for the West Bank into Jordan, and Gaza into Egypt. No other permutation is possible. Israel will lose very little, but even this may be too much for its “greater Israel” proponents.
If some version of this scenario were to happen and the Palestinian side were bamboozled into agreeing, it would destroy the Palestinian cause and wreak havoc within Palestinian ranks. Such an outcome haunts many Palestinians, who neither trust nor respect the negotiators and think they might sign away Palestinians’ rights. This may be unfair, but they can rest assured that if there is any possibility of a peace deal emerging from Washington, the Israeli side – if not theirs – will never let it happen.
PA carries out ‘one of largest arrest waves of all time’ in West Bank: Haaretz
Crackdown on Hamas operatives in the region, in which more than 300 were arrested, follows deadly terror attack near Hebron.
Palestinian security forces carried out one of the largest waves of arrests in the history of the West Bank following Tuesday’s shooting attack near Hebron, in which four Israelis were killed, a Palestinian source said on Wednesday.
According to the source, more than 300 people identified with Hamas have been arrested by Palestinian Authority security forces since the attack.
Hamas’ armed wing claimed responsibility for Tuesday’s attack, which occurred on the eve of a fresh round of U.S.-backed peace talks.
The Hamas armed wing, the Iz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, claimed responsibility for the attack from the Gaza Strip.
Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad vowed to prevent a repeat of such attacks. His Western-backed administration, which is set to resume peace talks with Israel on Thursday, is opposed to violence.
Tuesday’s shooting was the most lethal attack on Israelis in the West Bank in four years.
During a visit to a West Bank army base, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the military will do everything possible to quickly bring the perpetrators to justice. But he urged residents to show restraint.
Barak called on residents to show restraint. “We are in the midst of a long struggle for our right to live in security under a peace agreement with our neighbors,” Barak said.
A Palestinian security official, speaking on condition of anonymity under official guidelines, confirmed a crackdown was under way, but gave few details. He said the assailants from the shooting had not been found.
Hamas lawmaker Omar Abdel-Raziq said more than 150 members had been detained, and others had been summoned to police stations for questioning.
He accused Abbas of trying to please the Israelis.
“These are political arrests,” he said. “They are trying to tell the Israelis that they are capable of doing the job after the attack.”
Abbas, a Western-backed moderate, has carried out frequent crackdowns on Hamas since the Iranian-backed group defeated his forces and overtook Gaza three years ago. In turn, Hamas has frequently targeted members of Abbas’ Fatah movement in Gaza.
Four Israeli settlers shot dead on eve of White House talks: The Guardian
Hamas gunmen open fire on car along main road to West Bank city of Hebron in incident that could jeopardise vital peace talks
Israeli police investigate near where gunmen opened fire on a car near the West Bank Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba. Photograph: Ronen Zvulun/Reuters
Hamas gunmen shot dead four Israeli settlers on the outskirts of the volatile West Bank city of Hebron tonight in a move that could jeopardise the first face-to-face talks between Israel and the Palestinians for more than 20 months.
The armed wing of the Islamic organisation, which is virulently opposed to the negotiations, claimed responsibility for the “heroic operation” in which its militants attacked a car on a main road close to the city. The army said that the victims were two men and two women, one of whom was pregnant, who were from a nearby settlement.
An Israeli military spokeswoman said troops were at the scene, evacuating the bodies and searching the area, which was designated a closed military zone.
“The vehicle was sprayed with dozens of bullets,” an ambulance worker told Israeli television. “There were numerous shell casings around.”
A spokesman for the Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s armed wing, was quoted by Reuters as saying that the shooting was “a chain in a series of attacks, some have been executed, and others will follow”.
Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, said measures would be taken to prevent further attacks. “We condemn this operation, which goes against Palestinian interests,” he said in a statement.
The killings will dent hopes that peace talks, due to start in Washington with a White House dinner tomorrow night, can succeed in bringing a resolution to the conflict.
It will dismay the Palestinian Authority which has striven to prove security in the West Bank is under its control, and will increase tension between Fatah, the dominant political organisation on the West Bank, and its Gaza counterpart, Hamas.
Commentators have noted in recent weeks that the huge reduction in attacks by Palestinian militants provides an auspicious context for peace negotiations.
The White House, which has staked considerable political capital on the negotiations, will also be furious that tonight’s attack could scupper months of work to bring the two sides together.
A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in Washington, Jonathan Peled, warned that the attack would have an impact on the negotiations: “This terror act is a clear sign of the imperative need for us to ensure that if Israel’s security needs are not addressed, it’s going to be very, very difficult to begin making concessions in the West Bank,” he said.
Hebron, a turbulent city in which a core of hardline ideological Jewish settlers are protected by hundreds of Israeli troops amid a Palestinian population of more than 100,000, has been the scene of numerous violent attacks from both sides of the conflict.
The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, today travelled to the US capital against a backdrop of opposition, cynicism and indifference among their respective populations despite President Obama’s insistence that a comprehensive peace deal can be reached within 12 months.
Tomorrow’s dinner, scheduled for the relatively late time of 8pm to accommodate guests fasting during daylight for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, will also be attended by King Abdullah of Jordan, the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, and the Middle East quartet envoy, Tony Blair.
Formal discussions, chaired by the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, will begin on Thursday before moving to the Middle East later this month.
Although the talks were intended to begin without preconditions, both sides have set out early demands which have the potential to derail the process.
The most immediate issue is the looming end on 26 September of a partial moratorium on settlement construction, reluctantly agreed by Netanyahu last November. The Palestinians have threatened to walk out of the talks unless the Israelis agree to extend the freeze, saying settlement building is fatally undermining the prospects of a viable state.
Netanyahu has said repeatedly – most recently at Sunday’s cabinet meeting – that there is “no change” in the Israeli position, indicating that the freeze will end on schedule. He is under pressure from the rightwing members of his coalition to allow construction to resume.
Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian chief negotiator, told reporters in Ramallah last week that Israel “faces a choice between settlement activity and the path of peace”. He added: “If [Netanyahu] decides to restart construction, he will have chosen to end the negotiations.”
The Israeli prime minister cancelled a session of his inner cabinet which was expected to discuss the future of the freeze just before flying to Washington, suggesting he was unwilling to be pressed into a commitment.
He told members of his Likud party yesterday that he believed a peace deal was possible. “I am not naive. I see all the difficulties and hurdles and despite this, I believe that a final peace agreement is a reachable objective.”
Abbas is facing considerable opposition to the talks among Palestinians. A protest rally in Ramallah last week ended in disarray, when plainclothes security officials sparked a fracas. Fayyad this week apologised for the incident. A further rally is planned for tomorrow.
Barak to Haaretz: Israel ready to cede parts of Jerusalem in peace deal: Haaretz
Ahead of start of direct peace talks in Washington, Defense Minister Ehud Barak says Jerusalem’s Arab neighborhoods will be part of a Palestinian state; a ‘special regime’ to govern holy sites.
Ehud Barak has always vacillated between peace and security, dovishness and hawkishness, left wing and right wing. Even when he left south Lebanon, offered the Golan Heights to Hafez Assad and the Temple Mount to Yasser Arafat, he didn’t do this as a bleeding heart. He always spoke forcefully, talked about the importance of sobriety. He always spoke about how Israel must survive in a jungle. It must do so even now, on the eve of the peace summit in Washington.
This time, however, Barak is surprisingly – even unusually – optimistic. Perhaps it is because he contributed quite a bit to the summit’s unveiling. Maybe it is due to the fact that the summit is his political lifejacket. The defense minister believes in the 2010 peace summit even more than the principals taking part in it.
These past few weeks have been volatile, between the Galant document affair, the appointment of a new chief of staff, the meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah and the sit-down with Mahmoud Abbas. And perhaps more than anything else, Barak was feverishly preoccupied with trying to push Netanyahu across the Rubicon, trying to convince him that there is no choice, trying to convert Benjamin Netanyahu from Yitzhak Shamir to Menachem Begin. Did he succeed?
Up until the last minute, the man who has signed up to also take on the role of foreign minister doesn’t know whether he succeeded or not. Perhaps this is why he has chosen to make unequivocal, remarkable statements to Haaretz.
Yet the last-minute-meeting that Barak held with Netanyahu prior to the premier’s departure for the United States fueled his optimism. When Barak said what he said from his office at the Defense Ministry headquarters in Tel Aviv, his sense was that there is a good chance that Netanyahu will surprise us.
Ehud Barak, is there any chance that you and Benjamin Netanyahu will succeed in reaching peace with the Palestinians now, the same peace which you did not succeed in achieving in 2000 and Ehud Olmert did not succeed in achieving in 2008?
“In the current reality that is encircling us, there are remarkable changes underway. Thirty years ago, the Arabs competed amongst themselves in spouting rejectionist slogans that were reminiscent of [the three “nos” at] Khartoum. Today the Arab states are competing amongst themselves in arguing over which peace initiative will be adopted by the international community. The same situation is taking place with us. When I returned from Camp David a decade ago, the most vocal critics of my “irresponsible” concessions were Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni. Take a look at where they are today. It doesn’t mean that the task is a simple one. The gaps are wide and they are of a fundamental nature. But I believe that there is a real chance today. If Netanyahu leads a process, a significant number of rightist ministers will stand with him. So what is needed is courage to make historic, painful decisions. I’m not saying that there is a certainty for success, but there is a chance. This chance must be exploited to the fullest.
What are the principles of a peace deal that you believe can be agreed upon by the conclusion of the talks?
“Two states for two nations; an end to the conflict and the end of all future demands; the demarcation of a border that will run inside the Land of Israel, and within that border will lie a solid Jewish majority for generations and on the other side will be a demilitarized Palestinian state but one that will be viable politically, economically, and territorially; keeping the settlement blocs in our hands; retrieving and relocating the isolated settlements into the settlement blocs or within Israel; a solution to the refugee problem [whereby refugees return to] the Palestinian state or are rehabilitated by international aid; comprehensive security arrangements and a solution to the Jerusalem problem.”
What is the solution in Jerusalem?
“West Jerusalem and 12 Jewish neighborhoods that are home to 200,000 residents will be ours. The Arab neighborhoods in which close to a quarter million Palestinians live will be theirs. There will be a special regime in place along with agreed upon arrangements in the Old City, the Mount of Olives and the City of David.”
Does the terror attack near Beit Hagai prove the extent to which the current efforts for peace are useless?
“This is a very serious incident, the likes of which we haven’t seen for a long time. The Israel Defense Forces and the Shin Bet security service are acting with all their strength to get their hands on those who perpetrated the attack. There will be those who will say that this is the result of weakness and that Netanyahu must return from Washington because they are killing Jews. Yet in looking at the situation in a level-headed way, there is no doubt that this is an attempt to harm the start of the peace talks. So while we are steadfastly safeguarding our security and waging a determined campaign against the perpetrators, we cannot be deterred from working toward the success of the peace negotiations.”
What the wall has done: The Electronic Intifada
Jamal Juma’, 31 August 2010
Israel began constructing the wall in June 2002 following its invasion of cities in the West Bank, which it dubbed “Operation Defensive Shield.” In retrospect, the invasion appears to have been a prelude to the construction of the wall and no one recognized the significance of the invasion’s code name at the time. The immense scale of the 2002 invasion — characterized by the destruction of Palestinian civilian infrastructure, mass arrests, assassinations and massacres — ensured that the construction of the wall would commence with as little resistance as possible.
Accompanied by hundreds of military checkpoints, the wall solidified the dismemberment of the West Bank’s major population centers into Bantustans, separated from each other and segregated from occupied East Jerusalem. Israel’s actions were intended to enhance its control over the Palestinian people and block the establishment of a Palestinian state. The wall intentionally blurs the “Green Line,” the internationally-recognized armistice line between Israel and the occupied West Bank, thus overriding international law and United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT). Instead of relying on international law, Israel has substituted negotiations over “disputed” territories for which it sets the terms under an American shield.
Today, Israel’s “facts on the ground” clearly display the realities of its system of apartheid:
The wall, which will reach 810 kilometers in length, isolates 46 percent of the occupied West Bank and divides it into three large cantons and 22 small Bantustans. It cements Israel’s control over 82-85 percent of Palestinian water resources in the OPT.
A 1,400 kilometer road network is dedicated exclusively to Israelis and separated from Palestinian roads by 48 tunnels.
Thirty-four military checkpoints control the movement of people and goods between the different cantons and the movement of commercial traffic with Israel and the outside world.
Industrial zones, agricultural areas and crafts workshops have been established along the wall. These Israeli, joint and international ventures aim to transform the Palestinian people into a cheap labor force dependent on the Israeli economy. Raw materials and exports are entirely Israeli while the capital is international, Israeli and Palestinian.
Palestinian civil society’s response
Grassroots and peaceful resistance against the wall started three months after construction began. The delay was due in large part to the impact of the 2002 invasion on Palestinian society. Popular committees were formed in the villages and cities of the northern West Bank where the first stage of the wall was under construction. Activists organized events, documented damages and violations and organized international campaigns, communicating and coordinating with international solidarity activists who formed human shields at key areas around the West Bank. Dozens of rallies and activities were organized in the towns and villages across the northern and central West Bank. These protests occurred throughout the week and were coordinated with visits by international solidarity activists.
The demonstrations and other events attracted international attention. The images of the wall and its route, which clearly showed the extent of Israel’s theft of vast agricultural lands and water resources as well as the immense environmental and agricultural destruction, shocked observers around the world.
However, the Palestinian Authority (PA) remained indifferent to these activities, angering many Palestinians. The PA’s silence was particularly glaring given the numerous letters and appeals by farmers, local councils and popular committees for a response. Eventually, the indifference of the elected leadership raised questions and cast doubts among Palestinians and two rallies were organized outside the prime minister’s office to protest this stance.
Following the 2003 conference convened by the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in New York, the Grassroots Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign met with Nasser al-Qidwa, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PLO) permanent observer at the UN. The Grassroots Campaign provided al-Qidwa with a detailed power point presentation about the wall and its consequences for the “peace process.” Al-Qidwa took action and coordinated with international organizations, seeking information from the committees, civil and formal institutions, and international institutions that monitored Israel’s violations in the OPT.
In December 2003, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to refer the case to the ICJ to seek its opinion about the legal consequences of Israel’s construction of the wall. Prior to the 14 February 2004 ICJ meeting, peaceful popular marches across the occupied West Bank increased and were met with violence and repression by the Israeli army. Five Palestinians were killed and hundreds were wounded in the villages northwest of Jerusalem, specifically from Beit Duqqu and Biddu. In anticipation of the ICJ meeting, Israel altered the route of the wall in Baqa al-Sharqiya in the Tulkarem Governorate and Beit Sourik and Qatana in the Jerusalem Governorate, restoring thousands of dunums of land it had previously confiscated (a dunum equals approximately 1,000 square meters). Meanwhile, the Israeli high court issued a ruling stating that the army should take the “human impact” of the wall on Palestinians into consideration.
Before the ICJ was due to announce its ruling in July 2004, then member of the Israeli Knesset Dr. Azmi Bishara organized a sit-in in cooperation with the Grassroots Campaign. A tent was erected at the northern entrance to Jerusalem and stood for ten days, attracting hundreds of solidarity delegations and popular committees from across historic Palestine as well as foreign and international organizations, diplomatic missions and dozens of media outlets. The tent was packed with hundreds of people around the clock and lectures and presentations were organized. However, the PA abruptly and violently shut down the tent. The PA claimed that the tent was no longer needed after the ICJ passed its ruling on 9 July 2004. In reality, the tent was becoming a source of embarrassment to the PA because it was attracting attention in the media and the public.
The ICJ opinion and its implications
The ICJ’s advisory opinion was a great boost to the Palestinian people, particularly those living in the villages, cities and communities closest to the path of the wall.
The ICJ also found — by a vote of 13-2 — that the international community was obliged not to recognize the situation resulting from the construction of the wall or to provide assistance to maintaining the status quo. It is interesting to recall that a similar conclusion over three decades ago with regard to South Africa’s occupation of South West Africa led to sanctions against the apartheid state.
In addition, the court called for all parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to compel Israel to implement its decision and reaffirmed the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the OPT. By a vote of 14-1, the ICJ called on the UN to “consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the Wall and the associated regime.”
After it was referred to the UN, an overwhelming majority of members of the UN General Assembly endorsed the ICJ’s opinion. However, over six years later, the UN Security Council has yet to review the advisory opinion.
The advisory opinion has had implications at both the official and popular levels. In spite of the victory at the ICJ, PA officials have deliberately disregarded the advisory opinion. Each year they justify their negligence by maintaining that the political circumstances are unfavorable and that the Europeans and the Americans would not support their request to resort to the UN Security Council. While it is evident that there is considerable pressure from Israel and the US, the PA has not utilized the advisory opinion as an effective bargaining chip. Instead of relying on international law it has continued to bet on the negotiations sponsored by successive American administrations. Thus, the PA is caught in a vicious cycle: the very negotiations that they rely on for international recognition are used by the US and Israel to pressure them to abandon Palestinian rights.
The PA’s approach has had implications internationally. Because it represents the “official” Palestinian position, no nation — however friendly to the Palestinian people — is able to advocate forcefully on behalf of the Palestinians or its leadership. In other words, they cannot be “more Palestinian than the Palestinians.”
By contrast, the popular position has been and remains well ahead of the official position. From the earliest days of the wall’s construction, the Palestinian public recognized it as a colonial and racist project aimed at imposing a new geopolitical and security reality on the ground that would dramatically alter the West Bank and tighten Israel’s grip. Therefore, the strategy underpinning popular action was based on resisting Israel’s goals on the ground, creating broad international support with solidarity movements, and demanding the enforcement of international law and resolutions.
That popular resistance soon included moves toward boycotting Israel. Since 2003, civil society activists, including the Grassroots Campaign and the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel have worked for an international boycott against Israel. The ICJ’s advisory opinion not only reinforced the Palestinian boycott efforts but also enabled Palestinian civil society to continue pressuring the PA to challenge Israel in international forums. Moreover, international solidarity movements began to base their demands for dismantling the Wall and settlements and ending the occupation on the ICJ’s advisory opinion.
On the first anniversary of the ICJ opinion the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) was launched by 171 Palestinian coalitions, associations, trade unions and organizations within and outside historic Palestine. This call, which is the first Palestinian consensus document since the founding of the PLO, seeks to boycott and impose sanctions against Israel to ensure its compliance with international law. Over the past five years, the BDS movement has grown in size and strength around the world and has become the international reference point for all solidarity initiatives and movements globally. The BDS call has been followed by subsequent declarations such as the 2009 Kairos Document issued by a coalition of Palestinian churches that called on churches around the world to boycott Israel. Moreover, these actions by Palestinian civil society were welcomed by international solidarity groups who were eager for a nonofficial Palestinian grassroots initiative.
The popular resistance embodied by the BDS movement and the weekly protests against the wall are the foundation upon which international solidarity is built. These grassroots efforts have pushed the confrontation with Israel’s occupation to a vital battleground: the international arena with its media, civil and official institutions, organizations, trade unions, activists, universities and even the private sector. The impact and implications of these efforts has not gone unnoticed. A recent report by the Reut Institute, an Israeli think-tank, argued that BDS represented a strategic threat to Israel.
Recommendations
These recommendations stem from the experience of the past eight years of struggle against the wall.
The PA must end its compliance with US dictates and fully engage in the international battle against Israel as an occupying state, demanding that the UN Security Council and General Assembly implement the ICJ’s advisory opinion as well as other relevant resolutions.
Greater coordination and organization of the BDS movement is needed internationally in order to maintain pressure on Israel.
Within the Arab world, it is crucial to revive the Arab Boycott Committee, bringing more Arab grassroots organizations and unions on board with the BDS movement and pressuring the Arab League to withdraw its support for negotiations until the ICJ ruling is implemented in full.
Grassroots resistance needs to be expanded to include all contact points along the wall and alongside Israeli settlements. At the same time all forms of formal and popular normalization must be stopped.
The Palestinian citizens of Israel must resort to international judicial means to end the racism and discrimination they have been suffering for more than six decades.
This is the way to end Israel’s occupation, dismantle the wall and destroy the deep-seated racist mentality of Israel’s leaders. This is the way to make Israel recognize that it is part of rather than above the international community.
Jamal Juma’ is a founding member of the Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees, the Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange and the Palestinian Environmental NGO Network. Since 2002, he has been the coordinator of the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign.
This article was originally published by Al-Shabaka, The Palestinian Policy Network and is republished with permission.
Israeli Arab MK Zuabi: IDF boarded Gaza flotilla ships with intent to kill: Haaretz
Zuabi testified before UN panel probing Israeli naval commando raid that left nine Turkish citizens dead on May 31.
Israeli Arab MK Hanin Zuabi testified before a United Nations panel probing Israel’s deadly raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla in May, telling the panel that commandos who boarded the ships intended to kill, Army Radio reported on Tuesday.
A UN inquiry team began hearings on Monday with Jordanian activists about the May 31 Israeli raid on a Turkish ship trying to break an Israeli naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. Nine Turkish activists were killed in the raid.
So far, Israeli Knesset member Zuabi and six others have been interviewed.
“It was evident from the beginning that the commandoes viewed all of us activists as terrorists, Zuabi told The Associated Press after her testimony before a three-member UN team headed by Karl Hudson-Phillips, former judge of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
Israel’s use of large numbers of elite troops with sophisticated weaponry showed it intended to kill the passengers, added the lawmaker, who was aboard the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara, where the killing took place.
“We were very peaceful activists, but the commandoes came to kill,” she said.
Israel has refused to cooperate with this probe, accusing the UN Human Rights Council of bias. But it is working with a separate UN group led by New Zealand’s ex-Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer and Colombia’s ex-President Alvaro Uribe that is examining the legal ramifications of the incident.
Israel’s military has already wrapped up its own investigation, finding that intelligence failed to predict the violent response but troops acted properly under the circumstances.
The panel is due to report back to the UN Human Rights Council during its next session, between September 13 and October 11.
The Knesset in mid-July voted to revoke three parliamentary privileges from Zuabi (Balad) due to her participation in the aid flotilla that sailed to Gaza.
Thirty-four lawmakers voted in favor of stripping Zuabi’s privileges and 16 voted against, after a heated debate, in which Zuabi accused her fellow lawmakers of punishing her out of vengeance.
Zuabi responded to the Knesset vote by saying, “It’s not surprising that a country that strips the fundamental rights of its Arab citizens would revoke the privileges of a Knesset member who loyally represents her electorate.”
The UN fact-finding mission is chaired by Karl Hudson-Phillips, former judge of the International Criminal Court at The Hague.
Israel has refused cooperation with the team, claiming it lacks neutrality.