EDITOR: On the road to nowhere, again…
So, once again, Israel holds a debate with itself, excluding not only the rest of the world, but specifically, the Palestinians. Well, what else is new? it is what Israel did for decades; they prefer to debate with a side which agrees with it. In this case, while the Israeli public is far from being in agreement with its government about most issues, it is still slavishly synchronised with its refusal to engage with realities in the Middle East, or to properly discuss how the occupation may be brought to an end, and how a just peace may be approached. Having behaved like an ostrich for over six decades, why change now?
So, we can look forward to more denial, more bloodshed, more misery for all in Palestine and Israel. But the world around Israel is not the same that it was for decades – most people outside of Israel have noted this, of course; the Arab Spring might not be an overnight utopia, but it is far from over, and far from being written off as a failure. Indeed, to date, it has achieved much more than the world-famous 1968 in Paris, which in hindsight looks like a deflated balloon, despite all the hype. So, in the new and still forming Middle East, moving painfully towards democracy, Israeli dependence and reliance on dictators and potentates for its continuation of occupation ans apartheid seems somewhat less safe than it was last year. Indeed, the Israeli Jewish population itself was amazingly fired into radical action by the Arab Spring surrounding it… that their tame uprising and calls for ‘social justice’ seem to have excluded the main political issue of the occupation of Palestine is evidence of the difficulties of the so called “Jewish Democracy” in Israel, a democracy for Jews only. What we can advise the Israeli ‘radicals’ in their dwindling tents, is another session of education, concentrating on colonialism and imperialism this time, which may bring some better understanding of the hell they created for themselves and the Palestinians. There is little chance for this taking place, though. They are likely to continue fighting for reducing the price of cottage cheese, thinking this is a struggle for ‘social justice’.So, the protesters include the settlers, who are now being massively armed in order to stop any Palestinian protest after September 20th. This is NOT Socialism; this is Nazional-Socialism!
Well, it is easier to fight over the price of cheese, that to face six decades of colonial, racist policies and actions. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?
The Israel-Egypt junta alliance: Haaretz
Now Israel stands in fear and trepidation, counting the days until the Camp David agreement with Egypt comes crashing down.
By Zvi Bar’el
We were shocked. Suddenly we were told that Egypt is being run by a “military junta.” We were also surprised to discover that after 33 years of peace, the peace agreement was signed with a dictator, and that we continued on with the dictator who followed him after he was assassinated. And now this peace is about to collapse, because the dictator is gone and the junta has arrived.
Now Israel stands in fear and trepidation, counting the days until the Camp David agreement with Egypt comes crashing down. In Israel, the peace agreement is perceived as a prelude to war. Even if another 100 years pass after its signature, it is a threat.
So here is the solution: Instead of getting excited every morning about Egyptian statements regarding a “reevaluation” of the Camp David Accords, and instead of waiting around in fear for the moment when Egypt will announce a demand that the agreements be changed, Israel should initiate a cancellation of the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, until those countries have a genuine democracy or real dictatorship of the sort that Israel knows how to cooperate with.
We would, of course, very much like to see a military junta stay on in Egypt, under General Tantawi, managing affairs and keeping Tahrir Square from deciding who will lead the country. Peace with Egyptian citizens is much more expensive than peace with a junta or with a dictator. The people demand peace with the Palestinians, withdrawal from the territories, the demarcation of borders, and the rest of the demands that the dictators did not insist on. But how is it possible to continue living in peace with a military junta that answers to the voice of the street?
The truth is that we actually like military juntas. In Turkey we loved the junta that bought drones from us, upgraded its tanks and cooperated with us on intelligence. But now the country is led by a “civilian junta,” an “Islamic” one that was elected democratically. And, once more, surprise: It turns out that even a democracy is not the magic solution. It is even dangerous for ties between countries. In Egypt, we liked Hosni Mubarak because he was part of the military establishment, and we also liked also Anwar Sadat who preceded him. King Hussein relied on his army, and when he signed the peace agreement with Israel he did not consult the Jordanian people.
We liked military juntas in the Arab world, and in Chile, Argentina and Ethiopia. Military juntas speak a similar language. They understand one another; their interests are narrow and specific; they are scornful of civilians, certain that without them their countries will fall into chaos, and that civilian politics – democracy – is a recipe for the country’s collapse. Juntas operate in the name of a desired value that is supreme to all other values: security. All the rest – education, health, social services, civil rights – can exist only if the junta ensures security.
“The nation and the army together,” demonstrators cried in Tahrir Square.
Our junta would love it if Rothschild Boulevard would burst like a bubble. Civilians with round glasses, three-quarter-length pants, some of whom never served in the army, some smoking illegal grass, would then get their hands off the junta’s money-box and stop interpreting, without any authority, the holy budget, and especially the sections on defense.
Our junta wants the public to raise red banners like the ones in Tahrir Square, calling out, “The nation and the army together” – but with its interpretation. The people must not stick their hands in the army’s pockets.
The difference between Egypt and Israel is that here there are two military juntas: the one that is appointed and the one that is elected. There is one that shapes the internal policy of the state through the enormous budget that it claims for itself, and there is one that approves these budgets for its twin. There is the one that goes to war to defend the homeland, and the one that determines what the borders of the motherland are that the army must defend.
In Egypt, the military junta does not camouflage itself, even when it moves into ministries. Those who carried a military rank continue to take pride in it also as “civilians.”
In Israel, of the twin juntas, one wears uniforms and ranks, and the other wears suits and ties – but it is the same generals. And here is another discovery: That same junta that is now running Egypt would not have taken over were it not for the civilian mutiny that threw out the previous regime. Egypt did not undergo a military revolution, but a civilian one. The army is the one who extended a hand to the civilians. But this is Egypt, and it has never served as our model. It is, after all, a dictatorship.
French giant Veolia cut down to size for abusing Palestinian rights: The Electronic Intifada
Maren Mantovani and Michael Deas 26 August 2011
The French corporation Veolia once appeared unassailable; today it is ailing. It is faced not only with the global economic crisis but also the growing impact of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against its involvement with Israeli apartheid infrastructure and transport projects. A recent merger between Veolia’s transport division and a subsidiary of the main French state investment fund indicates French industry and government have united to find a simple solution to Veolia’s problems: let the taxpayers finance Veolia’s income losses — and its complicity with Israeli war crimes and human rights abuses against the Palestinian people.
On 4 August, Veolia management held a conference call with major financial analysts to defend the company’s latest figures. It wasn’t an easy task. Veolia’s management was forced to gloss over the terrible financial situation of the group that has forced it to draw up sharp cost reduction plans, initiate a complete restructuring of management, plan the pullout from more than forty countries and search for more investors to cover a high debt.
Veolia has lost more than 50 percent of its share value since March 2011, according to tear sheet data from The Financial Times (“Marketdata: Veolia Environnement Ve SA,” accessed 25 August 2011).
However, among the underlying financial data discussed — €67 million ($96 million) in net loss during the first half of this year; €15 billion ($21.6 billion) net debts; €250 million ($360 million) yearly cost reduction — one number did not come up: the massive financial damage the company has faced at the hands of the BDS movement. Since the beginning of the Palestinian-led campaign in 2005, Veolia has lost contracts worth more than €10 billion ($14 billion) following high profile campaigns.
Veolia’s chief financial officer Pierre-Antoine Riolacci had to admit that its municipal services are suffering a downturn in some countries “in particular with pressure on the downside, namely in the UK where things are rather difficult.”
Ignoring London loss
Surely the CFO had heard the news from across the English Channel the day before the conference call, where Veolia had failed to be selected for a £300 million ($493 million) contract by Ealing Council in London following a determined campaign by the local branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
The worldwide campaign against Veolia was initiated in response to the company’s five percent stake in the consortium that is constructing the light rail project that links West Jerusalem with illegal Israeli settlements in occupied East Jerusalem and the surrounding West Bank, thereby cementing Israeli colonization and creating the necessary infrastructure for its further expansion. Moreover, Veolia holds a thirty-year contract for the operation of its first line, due to open later this month. Veolia and its subsidiaries also operate bus services, waste management and a landfill all deep within the occupied West Bank, and all for the use of Israeli settlers. All of these projects contribute to war crimes, as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Refusal to withdraw from Israel
Despite its apparent desperation to reduce costs, Veolia has yet to implement the most effective cost reduction strategy it could: including Israel in the list of countries it plans to withdraw from. Rather than divesting from Israeli colonization of Palestinian land, Veolia is turning to the French state for financial assistance, involving public money in operations abetting Israeli war crimes.
This spring Veolia Transport merged with Transdev into a newly created company Veolia Transdev (“Veolia Transdev: Creation of the world’s leading private-sector company in sustainable mobility,” press statement, 3 March 2011).
Transdev was a subsidiary of the French Caisse des Dépôts (CDC), a public investment authority that manages public funds and is overseen by the French parliament. The CDC is now a 50 percent partner in the newly created Veolia Transdev transport company. According to Veolia’s Pierre-Antoine Riolacci, the entrance of Transdev intp the group has allowed Veolia to “cut back our debt by €159 million [$229 million].” The degree to which Veolia Transdev has come under the protection of the French state is evident in the fact that during the conference call, Veolia Transdev issues were directly dealt with by the CDC’s chief executive Jerome Gallot.
On its website, CDC boasts that it exists to “serve the general interest and the economic development” of France. But pumping French tax money into Veolia to make up for its financial troubles, thus allowing it to push forward projects that serve illegal Israeli population transfers into occupied Palestinian territory, is unlikely to help attain either goal. Moreover, the Jerusalem light rail project contradicts French government policy that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a future Palestinian state. Promoting the project in 2005, then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated, “This [light rail] should be done … to strengthen Jerusalem, construct it, expand it and sustain it for eternity as the capital of the Jewish people and the united capital of the state of Israel.”
Even before its partial ownership of Veolia Transdev, CDC was involved in the light rail project through its subsidiary Egis Rail, which won a contract in 2008 to assist with managing the project. The current role of Egis Rail is unclear.
Private companies have long been heavily involved in Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights, such as building and maintaining the illegal settlement infrastructure, and the wall built on Israeli-occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank. But by investing in Veolia, the French government is bucking a recent European trend of governments to start ensuring public enterprises and institutions are not complicit with Israeli violations of international law.
The German government recently responded to public pressure by taking steps to end the state-owned company Deutsche Bahn’s involvement in the construction of a train line from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv passing through the occupied West Bank. Explaining its intervention, the German transport ministry pointed to the “potentially illegal” nature of the project and the fact that it is inconsistent with government policy toward Israel and the Palestinians (“Letter from German government to Die Linke parliamentarian concerning A1 train project,” 10 May 2011). The German foreign ministry has admirably published an alert on its website warning German companies about the potential legal consequences of Israeli projects in the occupied West Bank (“West Bank, Economy”).
Precedents set by other European capitals
The Norwegian government took a precedent-setting step when it excluded Elbit Systems from its investment portfolio. Elbit is an Israeli arms company involved in the construction of Israel’s illegal wall in the West Bank. It subsequently also excluded Africa Israel and Danya Cebus, two companies which build illegal Israeli-only settlements in the West Bank (“Norwegian government pension fund excludes more Israeli companies,” 23 August 2010).
The British government also took a stand on the issue when, in 2009, the foreign ministry pulled out of a deal to rent office space for its embassy in a building owned by Lev Leviev, the Israeli diamond tycoon who owns Africa Israel and finances development of illegal settlements in the West Bank. The British government also withdrew export licenses to Israel from UK arms companies that provided the Israeli military with weapons or components that have been used during the winter 2008-09 attacks on the Gaza Strip (“Israel arms licenses revoked by Britain,” The Huffington Post, 13 July 2009).
In September 2009, the Spanish government excluded Ariel university from a state-sponsored architecture competition after having become aware that it was located in an illegal settlement.
The French government, however, has so far failed to take action to end such complicity. By doing so, France is not only undermining important precedents set by its allies. It also violates its obligations under international law and the voluntary commitments it has made regarding good governance and corporate social responsibility.
France must honor obligations
When the International Court of Justice ruled on the illegality of Israel’s apartheid wall and related infrastructure in the occupied West Bank, it also ruled that third party states are obliged not to aid or assist the maintenance of the unlawful situation created by Israel or infringements of the right to Palestinian self-determination. Two companies owned by the French state fund CDC — Veolia and Egis Rail — are involved with and profit from such unlawful acts. This calls France’s commitment to international law into question.
In June, the United Nations Human Rights Council approved its new Guiding Principles for the implementation of the Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework, designed to help states and businesses understand their duty to prevent corporate abuse of human rights and their obligations under international law (“Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework,” 21 March 2011).
According to these principles, “states should take additional steps to protect against human rights abuses by business enterprises that are owned or controlled by the state … [including by] denying access to public support and services for a business enterprise that is involved with gross human rights abuses and refuses to cooperate in addressing the situation.”
Involvement in the light rail project also violates the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s guidelines on multinational companies. Considering that Paris is the seat of the OECD, this is particularly ironic (“OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises,” 2008 [PDF]).
The OECD guidelines call for companies to “respect the human rights of those affected by their activities consistent with the host government’s international obligations and commitments.” Israel’s settlements and associated infrastructure violate several key international law treaties, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all of which have been ratified by Israel and France.
The French government has become a shareholder in Veolia in full knowledge of that company’s role in supporting Israeli occupation and colonization of Palestinian land. The principal victims of this French policy are the Palestinian people. However, this development should also be of concern to all those who believe in the importance of a functioning system of international law and the implementation of human rights standards. The French people, whose taxes have financed the Veolia Transdev merger, should be especially concerned.
It will be up to campaigners in France and all around the globe to stop governmental buy-ins to illegal operations of private or state enterprises. It will be their task to ensure that the Transdev deal will not be enough to shield Veolia from the impact of the BDS movement’s demand for accountability. The group is in financial trouble and its CFO has admitted that Veoila is losing municipal service contracts in cities and regions that have seen meticulous grassroots campaigning. In December, Veolia will present the full list of countries which it is leaving (“Veolia to leave 37 countries as loss spurs quicker revamp,” Bloomberg, 4 August 2011).
This might be another chance for the company to show that it has learned that failure to respect human rights and the Palestinians’ right to self-determination comes with a price.
Maren Mantovani is coordinator for international relations with Stop the Wall, the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign.
The Israeli left needs both peace and welfare: Haaretz
What’s the big deal? Next month will mark 18 years since the Oslo Accords, which deepened the occupation. The world won’t come to an end if the Palestinians were to wait a few more years.
By Akiva Eldar
If MK Shelly Yachimovich beats her four male fellow candidates to lead the Labor Party, it will be the first time that two major Israeli parties are headed by women at the same time. The last time that the two main parties were led by women was nearly 40 years ago, when Golda Meir was head of the Labor Alignment and Shulamit Alona led Ratz, the Movement for Civil Rights and Peace.
Unfortunately, both Yachimovich and Kadima chairwoman Tzipi Livni bring to mind the inflexible, arrogant woman who brought about the Yom Kippur War debacle – not her rival, who proudly waved (and still waves) the twin flags of peace and equality. The bad news is that the two of them have joined the masculine-militaristic discourse and are missing a unique opportunity to offer a conciliatory conversation and feminist values. The good news is that the agenda of the female Labor contender and the worldview of the former Likudnik leave a large vacuum that is just waiting to be filled by the left.
In a reasoned response to her critics that appeared in Haaretz (“A woman’s place,” Haaretz Magazine, Aug. 19), Yachimovich argues that the prevailing political agenda, which until the tent protest focused nearly exclusively on the left and the right, is blindly clinging to the tip of the iceberg. She proposes changing priorities: letting the settlements thrive undisturbed, abandoning the “idle chitchat” of the peace process and uniting around “a deep and genuine social-democratic agenda.” Only then, promises Yachimovich, “will the time come for the difficult decisions about the settlements.”
Her timetable resembles that of the ship’s captain who asks about the dinner menu just as his vessel is about to run into an iceberg.
Yachimovich has managed to convince a significant chunk of the left that “before going to war, or fighting for peace, we must first have a state” that justifies the risks, as she said in a January interview to Haaretz. In that case she should get on the horn to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen ) and ask him to put off the United Nations vote on recognizing a Palestinian state until she finishes her social-democratic revolution. What’s the big deal? Next month will mark 18 years since the Oslo Accords, which deepened the occupation. The world won’t come to an end if the Palestinians were to wait a few more years. Since September 1993, the number of settlers in the West Bank increased from 110,000 to almost 310,000 – a few thousand more won’t matter.
After she persuades Abu Mazen to take the economic inequality issues of the neighbors into account, the contender for Yitzhak Rabin’s seat would do well to get in touch with the young Palestinian men who, at dawn, crowd together like sardines at the crossing points into Israel. She should appeal to their emotions and request that they not vote for Hamas in the upcoming election and instead give their electoral voice to the Oslo losers, who promised to peacefully rid their lands of the Israelis. What’s the matter, can’t they wait until their neighbor completes her war against the tycoons?
And why is Egypt so impatient? Next month will be the 33rd anniversary of the signing of the Camp David Accords, which were supposed to lead to a comprehensive peace arrangement. And what about the Arab League – can’t it leave its March 2002 peace initiative in the deep freeze a little while longer, until Yachimovich’s Zionist friends finish taking over the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah? How inconsiderate. And we haven’t said a word about demographics.
Livni actually champions the issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But you won’t hear a peep out of her about the construction in Ariel and in Ramat Shlomo, about the logical division of Jerusalem or a just solution of the Palestinian refugees issue. On the other hand, the Kadima chairwoman reprimanded Defense Minister Ehud Barak (on Army Radio), saying, “It’s not enough to talk about separating the head from the body that shoots,” and she would not settle for the relatively restrained response of the Netanyahu government to the terror attack in the south.
Since her stint as head of the Government Companies Authority Livni’s own socioeconomic record would be enough to keep her from winning a tender for leader of the Israeli left.
The Israeli left – Jews and Arabs, members of the middle class and below – in other words, all those who will join the “million-person march” – need a leadership that can lead them with two legs: one of peace, and one of social welfare.
Finance Minister reneges on deal to give early payment to Palestinian Authority: Haaretz
PA stuck without means to repay a loan that was taken out to pay the salaries after Defense Minister, Customs Authority approved early transfer; Steinitz associates: refusal stems from recent rocket fire on Israel from the Gaza Strip.
Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz rejected a Palestinian Authority request that it move up payment of NIS 380 million in tax revenues so that the PA could pay salaries before the holiday of Id al-Fitr, which began Tuesday.
Steinitz nixed the request even though professionals at both his ministry and the Defense Ministry, as well as the Customs Authority, supported it and had reached an agreement in principle with the PA on the matter. Because of this decision, a senior Israeli official noted, the PA had trouble paying thousands of its employees, including members of the security forces, before the holiday.
Under the Oslo Accords, Israel collects customs duties on the PA’s behalf and transfers the money to the PA every month. Though the money belongs to the Palestinians, the actual transfer requires the finance minister’s signature.
“Every month, Steinitz flexes his muscles over the money issue and makes us go through seven levels of hell for the right to receive the money, which is ours,” one senior PA official complained to an Israeli colleague.
Last week, officials in the PA’s Finance Ministry and the Customs Authority asked their Israeli counterparts to transfer this month’s payment early in light of Id al-Fitr, the holiday that marks the end of Ramadan. The PA has had trouble paying salaries for months now due to a serious cash crunch, so it desperately needed the tax transfer if it was to pay its employees before the holiday.
The relevant Israeli officials agreed to the PA’s request and carried out all the necessary preparations for transferring the NIS 380 million. The Defense Ministry and the coordinator of government activities in the territories also strongly supported the early payment.
But when the payment order was sent to Steinitz last Friday, he refused to sign it, saying it was not yet time for the regular monthly transfer.
Meanwhile, the PA Finance Ministry had taken out short-term bank loans to cover the salary payments, on the assumption that since the Israeli professionals had agreed, the transfer would soon be arriving from Israel. Now, it has no way to repay these loans.
PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad therefore asked both Washington and the Quartet’s envoy to the peace process, Tony Blair, to lean on Steinitz to approve the transfer. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro met with Steinitz on Monday to urge him to do so, but Steinitz responded that he would not approve the transfer before the regularly scheduled date.
Following that conversation, Steinitz also informed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of his decision.
“We made it clear to the Americans that we will do what is specified in the agreements – not a day later and not a day earlier,” a source close to Steinitz said.
Steinitz’s associates said his refusal stemmed from the recent rocket fire on Israel from the Gaza Strip. “At a time when the Palestinians are firing missiles at us, we don’t intend to give them holiday gifts,” one stated.
But the missiles are being fired by Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees, not PA forces, and the PA has no control over Gaza.
Israeli officials involved in the issue accused Steinitz of political motives. “The Palestinians are paying the price for the tent protests and Steinitz’s poor standing in Israel’s public opinion,” one senior Israeli official charged.
For months, Steinitz has pushed for sanctions on the PA in light of its plan to seek United Nations recognition as a state in September. Steinitz believes the tax transfers should be used as a means of pressuring the PA to back down from its plan.
About two weeks ago, he and Defense Minister Ehud Barak clashed over this very issue at a meeting of the “Octet” forum of senior ministers. Steinitz proposed halting the tax transfers immediately and completely, while Barak argued that this would cause the PA to collapse and lead to anarchy in the West Bank. Netanyahu sided with Barak, and Steinitz’s proposal wasn’t adopted.
“Sanctions like those Steinitz is trying to impose will only undermine the Palestinian security services, and they’re the ones who will prevent escalation after the UN move and help the Israel Defense Forces contain events,” a senior defense official said yesterday. “We don’t need Palestinian soldiers refusing to come to work because they have no food at home. And the fact is that with every [previous] attempt by Steinitz to flex his muscles, the international community has rushed in and he has transferred the money.”
Palestinian youth in Gaza skeptical about PA’s UN bid: The Electronic Intifada
Mohammed Rabah Suliman Gaza Strip 19 August 2011
Young Palestinians are skeptical of any political “solution” that doesn’t address the refugees’ right of return. (Anne Paq / ActiveStills )
Along with several other bloggers and activists in the Gaza Strip, I was recently invited to take part in a short video about young Palestinians’ reaction to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) bid to have the United Nations admit a Palestinian “state” as a full member of the international body this September.
As each participant was being assigned a role in the video, an argument erupted among the four of us over who should speak in favor of the Palestinian Authority’s move. We discovered, to the producer’s amazement, we were all flatly against it.
This might have just been a coincidence. Only a few days earlier, however, I was awoken up by my new wild ringtone. As I answered my phone, I was asked by a journalist from Germany’s Deutsche Welle television to give an interview on the same issue. As I arrived at the arranged meeting place, another blogger was already giving her answers to the interviewer. She was unequivocally critical of the PA’s “disastrous history” and its “unending series of flops.” She argued that UN recognition of a Palestinian state would be just one more chapter in that sad history.
Of course it is hard to generalize from two incidents but they do offer some insight that a large segment of Palestinians believe they have been entirely and overtly marginalized by the PA’s unconcealed monopoly of Palestinian political decision-making.
Still, this does not mean that the PA’s move does not have any support in Gaza — there are Palestinians who support the PA and they are numerous.
Critics of the PA’s UN bid would say that none of these supporters is truly able to appreciate that their unrealized dreams of living in a long-awaited free and independent Palestinian state are not being advanced by the PA’s little-debated UN move. Some Palestinians may be convinced by the rhetoric of PA officials and believe that potential UN admission is a highly symbolic move and a step forward on the road toward independence. But some younger observers in Gaza are much more skeptical.
Fed up with ignored UN votes
Fidaa Abu Assi, a 22-year-old blogger and English literature graduate in Gaza, believes there is nothing symbolic in going to the UN and securing recognition of a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines. She is “fed up” with the unimplemented UN resolutions and symbolic moves taken by the PA on her behalf.
“Some Palestinians would rejoice at the thought of finally having a recognized Palestinian state,” she argues in a blog post. “In essence, however, the whole initiative seems pointless, or rather, insidiously dangerous.” Bewildered, she asks, “How could they [the UN] recognize a state that doesn’t even exist? And, wait, hadn’t the PLO already proclaimed a Palestinian state in 1988 on the basis of UN General Assembly Resolution 181?” (“‘No’ to UN Recognition, ‘Yes’ to US Veto,” 22 July 2011).
Abu Assi’s view reflects the sentiments of a generation that does not seek more UN resolutions and international declarations. Not even a declaration of a state. A state itself is rather what we desire. A state that we can touch, see and live in. We long for the reunification of the more than 11 million Palestinians living in the world. We want to see facts on the ground and tangible results. We crave for the land which has been relentlessly ripped apart in flagrant violation of dozens of resolutions already passed — and then promptly ignored — by the very same UN to which the PA now turns.
“We would forget, wouldn’t we?”
In an open letter to a refugee living in the Palestinian diaspora, Sameeha Elwan, a 23-year-old blogger and English teaching assistant at the Islamic University of Gaza, pours out her scorn on the PA, and any declaration of a Palestinian state on 1967 borders that excludes the right of Palestinian refugees to return (“To My Dear Stateless Palestinian,” 6 August 2011).
“My mother would no longer be a refugee,” Elwan writes. “She would have to give up every dream of going back to Aqer [a large Palestinian village nine kilometers to the south east of Ramla in present-day Israel]. My grandmother would stop telling us of her tales of the lost village near Gaza from which they fled in 1948. She would forget this history. It is no longer hers. She would have to stop telling the story every now and then. She’d eventually die; we would eventually forget, wouldn’t we?”
Some bloggers have displayed a deep understanding of the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and of its implications for the future of the Palestinians not only in Gaza and the West Bank, but also those living inside Israel.
One state: the only real solution
Rana Baker, a 19-year-old blogger and student of business administration also at the Islamic University of Gaza, argues that to be able to comprehend the risk of the UN declaration of a Palestinian state, this issue should be placed in its rightful context: the debate over a two-state solution. “In fact, the Palestinian street is divided into two: those who are for one state and those for the UN September recognition of two states,” Baker writes, adding “I’m for one state” (“I Turn On the Fan and Sit to Write,” 8 August 2011).
Baker too warns that the PA “statehood” bid may be most threatening to Palestinians in the diaspora. “What about more than 5 million Palestinian refugees who dream to return to their lands?” she asks, “The Palestinian Authority does not have the right to take decisions on their behalf. If they were given the right to vote, they would have voted against this bid. This is definite.”
Behind these criticisms lie doubts that many Palestinians have about the upcoming move to declare a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines. Some tend to question the functionality of a state in the besieged Gaza Strip and the heavily colonized West Bank, a state totally dependent on foreign aid.
Others reasonably cast doubt on the credibility of the UN to secure the viability of this state, if recognized, and safeguard it against Israel’s expansionist policy. Some call it a blatant concession that terminates the right of return of Palestinian refugees all over the world. And some view it as yet one more act of treason by the PA — a move that would involve turning our backs on the 1.5 million Palestinians living in dire conditions and facing constant discrimination inside the apartheid State of Israel.
As varied as the reasons might be to oppose the PA bid, they all stem from a firm belief that universal rights, real liberation and return, not “statehood” at any price, must be at the heart of our demands and struggle. Any solution must fully restore the rights of all segments of the Palestinian people — those living under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, those inside Israel, and the refugees waiting to return.
And its also clear that increasingly, many young Palestinians believe that these rights can only be achieved in a one-state solution that puts an end to Israeli apartheid and guarantees equality and justice for all.
Mohammed Rabah Suliman is a 21 year old Palestinian student and blogger from Gaza. Mohammed is an English literature graduate and will undertake graduate studies at the London School of Economics this September. He blogs at Gaza Diaries of Peace and War, and can be followed on Twitter @imPalestine.
Israel must get ready for its own Hurricane Irene: Haaretz
With or without any connection to September, all the necessary ingredients for a new popular uprising are in place.
By Amira Hass
The astromancers are having a field day. The planet September 2011 – orbited by the asteroid Intifada 3 – is rapidly approaching us. The nearer they come to the fixed star of Idifus, the higher the shares of Central Command Laboratories Ltd. climb. The media outlets alternate between interviewing the stargazers and past and present employees of CCL in an attempt to guess “what will be.” After all, “what will be” is a celestial body that moves in space, unconnected to any human activity. One option is that it will pass over us, in which case it could serve to predict the likelihood of falling in love during the weekend. The second is that it will crash into us, hapless souls that we are. Therefore we must prepare ourselves, just as Mayor Michael Bloomberg prepared New York City for Hurricane Irene.
The September verbal commotion sets another record – soon to be broken – of Israelis’ talent for obliterating from their cognition the gravitational force that their state possesses. The Israelis, with the assistance of their representatives in the media, wear two hats in this respect. The first is that of the potential victim of an uncontrollable natural phenomenon. He is bound to respond appropriately thanks to his resourceful tricks (such as enlisting the residents of the Yitzhar and Migron settlements to repel the local version of Irene ). The second hat is that of the straight-arrow scientist.
Both the responder and the scientist address, each in their own way, the question of whether accepting “the State of Palestine” as a member of the United Nations will disturb the status quo, which is: a single expanse from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. Two peoples. One government. One people and a branch of the second people participating in elections. The larger branch of the second people denied the right to vote. The one government determines the separate and unequal course of development of each people. An upper-country people and a lower-country people. Those on the first course have the right to live in the country because their forefather immigrated 3,000 years ago. Those on the second course do not have the right to live in their home, because their refugee fathers were born there 80 years ago.
Two opposing ruling systems, military and civilian, two separate and unequal infrastructure systems. The lower country is divided into “territorial cells,” in brigadier-general-speak. When the people in the upper country feel like opening the territorial cells to restricted movement, it does so. If it feels like closing them, it closes them.
The responders and the scientists study the slightest movement of the inhabitants of the territorial cells. Someone runs over someone else, another brandishes a knife, a third is caught without the proper permits. What does it mean, they ponder: perhaps an organizational weakness, perhaps a rise in private initiatives. They do not ask: What does it mean when Supreme Court justices allow the separation barrier to turn the village of Walajeh into a ghetto? Does it mean they’re not afraid of the International Court of Justice in the Hague? They do not wonder: What does it mean that in the midst of a period of calm in the West Bank, Israel Defense Forces soldiers kill two young men in Qalandiyah, that Civil Administration officials issue demolition orders, that the military court arrests Palestinian children on suspicion of throwing rocks and the civil court releases settlers who are suspected of nearly splitting the head of a Palestinian boy?
It is only natural for the party that benefits from the status quo to see it as the natural condition. Ask Bashar Assad, and he’ll tell you how anyone who challenges the existing order is violent, aggressive, perverse.
With or without any connection to September, all the necessary ingredients for a new popular uprising are in place. No clairvoyance in that. The ingredients can only be found in the current, violent order. Israel’s policy of separate development recreates them constantly.
Chomsky on the west and Arab democracy: Guardian
Noam Chomsky: ‘As long they get the backing of dictators, it doesn’t matter to western governments what Arab populations think’ – videoThe 19th century … 2001 … today. Noam Chomsky sees hegemonic powers showing extreme contempt for democracy – and acting in ways they know will increase terrorism
Israeli military arms settlers in preparation for Palestinian protests: Guardian
West Bank settlers are given training before protests predicted to coincide with a Palestinian petition for UN recognition
Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
Palestinians throw stones at Israeli soldiers during a protest near the West Bank settlement of Kadumim. Photograph: Jaafar Ashtiyeh/AFP/Getty Images
The Israeli military is arming and training West Bank settlers in preparation for mass protests by Palestinians that it expects to erupt around the time that the UN is asked to recognise a Palestinian state, according to a leaked document.
Teargas and stun grenades are being distributed and training sessions held with settlement security teams, according to the document obtained by Haaretz.
The army has also drawn lines on maps around Jewish settlements close to Palestinian villages to guide troops, police and settlement security chiefs. Protesters who breach the first line will be subject to teargas and other methods of crowd dispersal. If a second “red line” is crossed, soldiers will be permitted to open fire at protesters’ legs.
The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) confirmed it was liaising with settlers over Operation Summer Seeds, its codename for the military response to the expected protests. However, Palestinian leaders vigorously deny that violent protests are planned, and the Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, has said he expects September to pass quietly.
In a statement the IDF said: “The IDF maintains an ongoing, professional dialogue with the community leadership and security personnel throughout Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] while devoting great efforts to training local forces and preparing them to deal with any possible scenario.
“Recently, central command has completed training the majority of the first response teams; these exercises are ongoing. Beyond the aforementioned training, the IDF cannot comment further regarding its operational preparedness.”
According to Haaretz, the army has held training sessions for settlement security officers at a military installation near the West Bank settlement of Shiloh.
Settlers are pressing the IDF to issue specific instructions on how they should respond to Palestinian protests, the paper says, but the military advocate general is concerned that such instructions could be interpreted as rules of engagement.
Hagit Ofran, of Peace Now, an Israeli organisation which monitors settlement activity, said: “We hope the army is making clear that non-violent protest is legitimate and no settlers should use any violence against unarmed demonstrators.”
Arik Ascherman of Rabbis for Human Rights said there were already “serious questions and problems” with settlement security officials acting outside their designated boundaries. “We’re very concerned that [the IDF move] will not reduce conflict but increase it,” he said.
Preparation for anticipated protests has been under way for weeks, with extra training given to thousands of police officers and soldiers. The Israeli authorities have allocated funds for training exercises and the purchase of additional equipment.
The military has reportedly stockpiled around 200,000 litres of foul-smelling liquid to be fired from water cannon at protesters, or possibly dropped from planes. Supplies of stun grenades, rubber bullets and riot gear are also being topped up.
According to the leaked document, the IDF expects demonstrations to turn into “mass disorder”. It says the protests may include “marches towards main junctions, Israeli communities and education centres; efforts at damaging symbols of [Israeli] government. Also there may be more extreme cases like shooting from within the demonstrations or even terrorist incidents. In all the scenarios, there is readiness to deal with incidents near the fences and the borders of the state of Israel.”
Earlier this month, Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s rightwing foreign minister, said the Palestinians were preparing for “bloodshed the likes of which we’ve never seen before”. Some commentators believed his remarks were aimed at inflaming the situation and stoking fears among the Israeli population.
The Palestinian spokesman Ghassan Khatib said Israel was “trying to fuel a fake picture of what will happen in September”, adding: “These Israeli predictions of violence aren’t true.”
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has called for peaceful demonstrations in September to coincide with the Palestinians’ petition to the UN for recognition of their state. But he has repeatedly said protests should be peaceful. “I insist on popular resistance and I insist that it be unarmed popular resistance so that nobody misunderstands us,” he told the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s central committee.
The Palestinian leadership is expected to present their request to be admitted to UN membership when the general assembly meets in September. Membership of the UN requires security council approval, which the US has already said it will veto.
The Palestinians are then expected to request an enhanced “non-member state” status, which needs a two-thirds majority in the general assembly. They claim to have the backing so far of 124 of the UN’s 193 members, and expect to get a majority by the time of a vote.