Haaretz: “So much for another kind of olive harvest”

by Akiva Eldar, October 26th

Who remembers nowadays that Amir Peretz made dismantling illegal outposts a condition for Yisrael Beiteinu joining the government – with the agreement of the knight of law and order, Avigdor Lieberman? What became of Peretz’s vows to reexamine the separation fence route designed by a settler who the attorney general admits misled the High Court? Anyone interested in the fate of Palestinian olive grove owners will discover that, as far as they are concerned, Lieberman can move right into the Defense Minister’s Office.

Peretz’s celebratory promises that this year’s olive harvest would be different than those of past years are shattered daily at Israel Defense Forces checkpoints. Even the High Court injunction to permit farmers to work their land makes no impression on security forces.

Members of the Yesh Din-Volunteers for Human Rights organization, who go out to the field every day, reported yesterday that the IDF had completely blocked access to groves in five West Bank villages. The IDF prevents farmers in three villages from entering their land on the west side of the separation fence. Another six villages were informed their lands had been closed or seized by the military. In at least one case, farmers were thrown off their land without being presented any orders at all. Farmers in 10 villages were ordered to harvest olives on specific dates and seek advance permission from security officials before entering their land.

According to the IDF spokesman, these orders were intended only to assure that farmers would coordinate their efforts with the IDF, and only dealt with the minimal tracts of land permitted in the High Court ruling. One brief hour after the spokesman responded, four thugs from Havat Gilead attacked olive harvesters from the village of Farata. None of the perpetrators were detained.

Peretz missed the opportunity to demand that, in return for Lieberman joining the government, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert grant a smidgeon of his promise to discuss the Syrian president’s threats to make peace – not to mention the Arab peace initiative. Peretz’s right to exist in the Defense Ministry rests on his (for now) determined stand on the Gaza Strip. Peretz remains the only solid obstacle preventing IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz from reoccupying it. One can readily find a hint of this in his statements this week regarding his lack of desire to grapple with a hypothetical dysentery outbreak in Gaza.

Someone apparently told Peretz that Halutz’s southern adventure would lead to the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority and grant responsibility for 1.3 million Palestinians to Israel. The Defense Ministry knows the statistics. Military administration in the territories would cost the Israeli taxpayer at least NIS 1 billion per month.

Peretz’s ability to restrain Halutz will depend on the number of Qassam rockets that fall on the defense minister’s hometown, Sderot, over the next few days. The number of Qassam missiles is directly connected to the number of Palestinians killed in IDF attacks.

Empowering Abbas

Amid the chaos that grips the territories, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has almost no influence on developing events. Olmert says Abbas is weak. Olmert is the only man in the world who can empower him. He can do this by handing the chairman – and only the chairman – thousands of aging, female and young prisoners. Tens of thousands of the prisoners’ relatives will impose a siege on Hamas offices in Gaza until Khaled Meshal orders Gilad Shalit returned home.

But Abbas concluded long ago that salvation would not come from Olmert. His most recent meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush convinced him that as long as Hamas is in power, America is lost to him. Even if Haniyeh sings “Hatikva,” Israel’s national anthem, in Rabin Square, the U.S. will cover its ears. The latest draft on a unity government that Hamas delivered to Qatar failed to receive even one line of international press, not to mention Israeli media notice.

Hamas failed, once again, to pronounce the word “Israel,” or declare (of course), “We recognize the State of Israel.” On the other hand, the document includes recognition of international law and a commitment to honor all agreements signed by the PA and Fatah, while demanding the rights and interests of the Palestinian people be guaranteed. Hamas also promises to employ legitimate means in the battle for ensuring Palestinian rights and ending the occupation. They differentiate these means from terror (some interpret this as a reference to Israeli terror). The document declares that the goal is bringing about the creation of a Palestinian state within territories occupied in 1967.

Yesterday, a baseless rumor was circulating that after the end of the Id al-Fitr holiday, the chairman would disband the government and announce the establishment of a temporary, technocrat government until the next elections. In these elections, parties that wish to run would be required to recognize previous agreements, including recognition of Israel, and denounce terror before the polls are opened. Just in case Hamas fails to accept these terms happily, the Americans have equipped Abbas’ Presidential Guard with their finest weapons and a lot of greenbacks.

The honor of the court

Piercing statements by Attorney Orit Koren, who is responsible for High Court appeals in the State Prosecutor’s Office, left no room for doubt. This violation of court orders is an extraordinary act that deserves an aggressive response.

“There is no need to describe the gravity of these acts committed in defiance of an interim order handed down by the honorable court,” wrote Koren regarding the behavior of the construction company.

She added that defiance of the order to cease building took place with no permit and contrary to the legal plan. If that is not enough, work to open the road at a building site in the Matityahu Mizrach settlement contradicts the plan created to rectify the original violation. The road crossed through two lots earmarked for residential units and another lot designated as open public space.

After all these harsh statements, one might assume the state prosecutor has decided to join Peace Now in requesting an immediate injunction to stop construction, return things to their former state and take action regarding this apparent contempt of court. Right? Not at all.

“Despite these statements, in light of humanitarian circumstances that have developed,” the prosecution writes, “there is reason to permit aspects of the plan to be completed over an interim period, ‘temporary preparations’ of the road.”

Koren explains that blocking public vehicles from using the only access route to the Heftziba Company’s housing complex will injure 80 needy (ultra-Orthodox) families that rely on public transportation to reach shopping centers and services in the veteran community of Modi’in Elite. One wonders if the sympathetic prosecutor would have shown the same consideration if Palestinians had built hundreds of residential units on Jewish land without permits and later defied a court order to stop construction.

Michael Sfard, the attorney for Peace Now who has been involved in settlement issues for years, says the prosecutor’s position is evidence that systematic tolerance of law violations is not the sole domain of settlers and politicians. Sfard warns that the prosecutor’s statements will be broadly quoted by those who build illegal outposts and annex land in the West Bank. He doubts the High Court has the authority to authorize a breach of law, as the prosecution requests.

Every request granted

Thousands of Palestinian families spent their holidays far from their parents and children. According to data from the statistics department of the PA Ministry of Prisoners Affairs, last June about 10,100 Palestinian prisoners, including 335 minors and 104 women, were being held in Israeli incarceration facilities and prisons. Some 369 prisoners have been held for more than 12 years. In other words, they were imprisoned before the Oslo Accords and the establishment of the PA, and were not released after the Oslo Accords. Of these veteran prisoners, 45 have been held for more than 20 years, and seven of the 45 have been held for more than 25 years.

Most of the prisoners – 55 percent – were never tried or convicted. They might actually be considered kidnapped. Attorney Amit Gurewitz spent two days in military court at the Ofer military base. In the last issue of the journal “Hapraklitim,” (Prosecutors), published by the Tel Aviv Attorneys Association, he described how a state of law sends people to jail. Hundreds were detained on the same day. Every request to prosecute was granted. Not a single arrest failed to be extended.

Prisoners are led in groups of five to the cabin where the judge sits. Defendant Morad Yousef was detained half a year ago because he was suspected of throwing rocks in 2001. The prosecution has still not had the time to prepare an indictment. His attorney does not have firsthand knowledge of his “classified” case. The judge is also reading the case for the first time.

His attorney says, “He was not arrested immediately after incrimination. Thus, he is not dangerous and should be released.”

The judge does not respond. He tells the prosecution, “I examined the investigation and found the basis of evidence at this point.”

Next case: Rafat Salem Okat. The judge: “Just a minute, I will read the file … The prosecution may have difficulty supporting each risk separately but the entirety reveals a clear picture.” The attorney: “This is a classic case for dismissal.” The prosecution: “Risk of danger, risk of flight.” The judge extends the remand by another eight days. In another case the judge decides, “Because a problem makes it difficult to examine the defense attorney’s claims, the defendant will remain in custody until the resumption of the hearing.”

“It is possible to discuss the security situation and the justice of arrests,” writes Gurewitz, “But it is difficult and shameful to cloak this in the pretense of a ‘trial.'”

BBC World Service: “Escolta para la cosecha” (Escort for the Harvest)

by Karim Hauser, BBC Spanish World Service , October 24th
English translation below

En el Líbano, pude constatar que los agricultores del sur del país tienen dos opciones: perder la cosecha, o adentrarse en sus campos y perder la vida al pisar un explosivo sin detonar, cortesía de los bombardeos israelíes en el conflicto que terminó hace dos meses.

En los territorios palestinos, si bien no hay explosivos en las parcelas, lo que sí hay es una barrera de separación, un sinnúmero de retenes de control y áreas donde los colonos judíos diariamente boicotean la cosecha.

“La aceituna y el aceite son de las fuentes primordiales del sector agrícola. Y por eso el olivar es básico para los campesinos palestinos”, señaló a BBC Mundo Abdel Jawad Saleh, ex ministro de Agricultura palestino.

Si bien la cosecha del olivo 2006 apenas comienza, ya hay varias quejas de individuos que no pueden explotar debidamente su tierra.

Agricultores en apuros

“La ocupación israelí ha cercenado cientos de miles de árboles. Y ese muro de separación, en realidad no es para seguridad sino para confiscar las mejores tierras de Cisjordania, en especial las irrigadas” dijo a BBC Mundo Abdel Jawad Saleh, ex ministro de Agricultura.

“Otro enorme problema que enfrentan son los colonos judíos que se han insertado en la profundidad del campo palestino y no dejan a los agricultores en paz, al atacarlos o arrancar los árboles o arruinarlos con productos químicos”.

Mohammed Raja, tiene 44 años y vive en Burin, Cisjordania. Su parcela tiene 150 olivos, 20 almendros y 20 higueros. “Nosotros estamos rodeados de cuatro asentamientos y enfrentamos muchos problemas, sobretodo desde la segunda intifada. A principios de este año los colonos vinieron con palos a arruinar los plantíos”, me dijo en una conversación telefónica.

“No te puedo decir cuántos problemas hay por semana. Hace 5 minutos mi padre quería transportar dos bolsas sobre el burro. Ya en el camino lo interceptaron dos coches con colonos y golpearon al burro; mi padre apenas pudo saltar a tiempo”, añadió.

Sin embargo, el ejército no tiene registro de estos problemas. “Hasta ahora todo se pudo recolectar y ha sido aprovechado en su totalidad; no tenemos ninguna queja registrada en la Oficina de Enlace”, dijo a BBC Mundo Hernán Jeberovich, portavoz del ejército israelí.

Escoltando al campesino

Así como hay colonos israelíes determinados a impedir el acceso de los campesinos palestinos, hay otros ciudadanos que luchan para garantizarlo.

El rabino Arik Ascherman pertenece a Rabinos por los Derechos Humanos, que junto con otras organizaciones, como el Movimiento de la Solidaridad Internacional o Machsom Watch, escoltan a los palestinos a sus tierras.

“Estamos presentes en más de 30 pueblos palestinos desde el año 2002. Año tras año ha habido progreso pero no es suficiente”, dijo el rabino.

En junio de este año, después de una apelación interpuesta en noviembre de 2004, la Suprema Corte de Israel reconoció el derecho de acceso de los palestinos a sus tierras, con protección del propio ejército israelí.

“La única forma de entrar aquí es a través del camino de los asentamientos, no hay otro acceso. Y eso sólo se puede hacer mediante la coordinación con los israelíes y es ahí donde con los extranjeros usan su influencia, pero ellos no están constantemente con nosotros, sino que si tenemos problemas les llamamos y ellos piden al ejército que intervenga para protegernos”, dijo a BBC Mundo el campesino Mohamed Raja, de Burin, Cisjordania.

Escolta incómoda

Según el diario israelí Haaretz, hace una semana las Fuerzas de Defensa Israelíes exigieron que los agricultores palestinos no sean escoltados a sus tierras por simpatizantes israelíes y extranjeros.

El rabino Ascherman reaccionó a las restricciones del ejército. “Creo que el ejército está enojado, debido a la sentencia de la Suprema Corte. Aunque algunos comandantes han reconocido que somos útiles, otros ceden a la intensa presión de los colonos”, indicó el religioso judío a la BBC.

Por su parte Hernán Jeberovich, portavoz del ejército, matizó estas afirmaciones. “Ellos pueden acompañar a los agricultores, si lo desean. El ejército no tiene objeciones.

Pero existe una mínima cantidad de áreas en donde hay mucha fricción y se pide que sean sólo los campesinos los que ingresen. Son razones de seguridad y no de ideología”, dijo a BBC Mundo.

Pero el rabino Arik Ascherman no está de acuerdo. “Justamente esas pequeñas áreas son precisamente donde más nos necesitan.

En algunas partes reconocemos que complicamos las cosas para el ejército, ya que en efecto los colonos están más molestos por nuestra presencia que por la de los palestinos”, respondió Ascherman.

“Pero lo que está haciendo el ejército es impedirnos el acceso a áreas cada vez más extensas.”

Entre la espada y la pared

Varios observadores concuerdan que la situación en Cisjordania está mejor regulada y la decisión de la Suprema Corte indica buena voluntad. Pero en las tierras ubicadas entre la nueva barrera de separación y la frontera de Cisjordania de 1967, conocida como línea verde, la situación es otra.

El ingreso de Salah El Teily depende totalmente de la agricultura. Tiene 44 años y 6 hijos, vive en Tulkarem y tiene que obtener permisos para llegar a su parcela. “El muro me separa de mi terreno y teníamos prohibido pasar, hasta que los extranjeros intervinieron y nos consiguieron permisos. Pero el ejército sirve para proteger a los colonos y no a nosotros.”

Y es que la intervención de las ONGs resulta esencial para el movimiento de estos pequeños agricultores. “La gente necesita un permiso especial para entrar a esas tierras ubicadas entre la barrera de separación y la línea verde”, dijo a BBC Mundo Sylvia Piterman de la ONG Machsom Watch.

“Hay familias enteras a las que no les reconocen la propiedad de sus tierras, después de haberlas trabajado durante generaciones; hay también unas 200 mil personas consideradas “peligrosas” a las que no les dan acceso; o familias muy grandes que sólo reciben permisos para pocos miembros de su familia”, explicó Piterman. “Las cosas se han puesto más dificiles que en años anteriores”.

¿Y qué pasa con esas tierras inaccesibles? “Hay una vieja ley otomana; si la tierra no se trabaja deja de ser propiedad de los individuos y pasa a manos del estado. Y la gente está bastante desesperada con eso”, aseveró Sylvia Piterman.

***********************************************************************************

In the Lebanon, you could say that the farmers in the south of the country have two options: to lose the harvest, or to go into the fields and be killed by an unexploded bomb, courtesy of the Israeli bombings in the conflict that finished two months ago.

In the Palestinian territories, although there are no explosives in the fields, there is a separation barrier, an endless number of checkpoints and areas where the illegal Israeli settlers interfere with the harvest on a daily basis.

“The olive and the oil are the fundamentals of the agricultural sector. And for that reason the olive grove is a basic for the Palestinian farmers “, said Abdel Jawad Saleh, ex- minister of Palestinian Agriculture to BBC World.

Although the 2006 harvest of olive trees has only just begun, already there are several complaints that individuals that cannot operate properly on their land.

Farmers Endure Hardships

“The Israeli occupation has cut down hundreds of thousands of trees. And that separation wall, in fact is not for security but to confiscate the best land in the West Bank, especially the irrigated sectors”said Abdel Jawad Saleh, ex- minister of Agriculture, to BBC World.

“Another enormous problem that we face is the illegal settlements that have been established deep into Palestinian rural areas and the settlers do not leave the farmers in peace; they attack them or uproot the trees or ruin the olives with chemical agents”.

Then there are times that the farmers have to throw olives on the ground because they do not have the right to move them, said to Saleh to BBC World from Ramallah.

Mohammed Raja, is 44 years old and lives in Burin, in the West Bank. His parcel of land has 150 olive trees, 20 almond trees and 20 vines. “We are surrounded by four settlements and have faced many problems, since the second intafada. At the beginning of this year the settlers came with sticks to ruin the plants”, he said to me in a telephone conversation.

“I cannot say to you how many problems it has been per week. 5 minutes ago my father wanted to transport two bags on the donkey. On the way they intercepted him with two cars filled with settlers. They struck the donkey and my father who jumped out of the way,” he added.

Nevertheless, the army does not have a register of these problems. “Until now it was not possible to collect this information and it has been taken advantage of; we do not have any complaint registered in the Office of Coordination “, said Hernán Jeberovich, Israeli army spokesman to BBC World.

Escorting the Farmers

As well as Israeli settlers who try to prevent access to the Palestinian farmers, there are other Israeli citizens who fight to guarantee it.

Rabbi Arik Ascherman belongs to Rabbis For Human Rights that along with other organizations, like the International Solidarity Movement or Machsom Watch, escort to the Palestinians to their land.

“We have been present in more than 30 Palestinian towns and villages from year 2002. Year after year there has been progress but it is not sufficient “, said the rabbi.

In June of this year, after an appeal made in November 2004, the Supreme Court of Israel recognized the right of access of the Palestinians to their land, under the protection of the Israeli army.

“The only way to enter the land here is by way of the settlements, is no another access. And that can be only done by coordination with the Israelis, that is where the foreigners can use their influence, but they are not constantly with us, but if we have problems we call them and they request that the army protects us “, said the farmer Mohamed Raja, of Burin, West
Bank, to BBC World.

Uncomfortable Escort

According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, one week ago the Israeli Defence Forces demanded that the Palestinian farmers are not escorted to their land by Israeli and foreign supporters.

Rabbi Ascherman reacted to the restrictions of the army. “I believe that the army is angry, due to the sentence of the Supreme Court. Although some commanders have recognized that we are useful, others yield to the intense pressure from the settlers”, indicated the Jewish holy man to the BBC.

On the other hand Hernán Jeberovich, an army spokesman, clarified the story. “They can accompany the farmers, if they wish to. The army does not have objections. But a very small number of areas exist where there is a lot of friction and we ask that in those areas only the farmers enter. These are for security reasons and not of ideology “, he said to BBC World.

But Rabbi Arik Ascherman does not agree. “Exactly those small areas are precisely where they need us more. In some ways we recognize that we complicate things for the army, since in effect the settlers find our presence more annoying than the presence of the Palestinians “, responded Ascherman.

“But what the army is doing is to prevent the access us to more and more extensive areas.”

Between the Sword and the Wall

Several observers agree that the situation in the West Bank better regulated and the decision of the Israeli Supreme Court indicates good will. But on land located between the new separation barrier the 1967 border of the West Bank , better known as the Green Line, the situation is different.

Salah Al Teily depends totally on agriculture. He is 44 years old and has 6 children, lives in Tulkarem and must obtain permission to go on his land. “The wall separates me from my land and we were prohibited to work it, until the foreigners took part and they obtained permission for us. But the army serves to protect to the settlers and not us.”

And it is the intervention of the NGOs that is essential for these small farmers to move onto their land. “People need special permission to enter the land located between the separation barrier and the Green Line”, said Sylvia Piterman of the NGO Machsom Watch to BBC World.

“There are whole families whom they do not recognize own property that has been worked for generations; there are also 200,000 people considered “dangerous” to whom they do not grant access; or very large families who only receive access permission for few members of their family”, explained Piterman. “things have been more difficult than in previous years”.

And what happens to land that is inaccessible? “There is an old Ottoman law; if the land is not worked it stops being property of the individuals and goes into the hands of the state. And people are quite desperate about that “, asserted Sylvia Piterman.

Haaretz: “Settlements grow on Arab land, despite promises made to U.S.”

by Amos Harel, October 24th

A secret, two year investigation by the defense establishment shows that there has been rampant illegal construction in dozens of settlements and in many cases involving privately owned Palestinian properties.

The information in the study was presented to two defense ministers, Amir Peretz and his predecessor Shaul Mofaz, but was not released in public and a number of people participating in the investigations were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements.

According to security sources familiar with the study, the material is “political and diplomatic dynamite.”

In conversations with Haaretz, the sources maintained that the report is not being made public in order to avoid a crisis with the U.S. government.

Brigadier General Baruch Spiegel, assistant to the Defense Minister, retired earlier this month. Spiegel was also in charge of the various issues relating to the territories, which Dov Weisglass, chief of staff in prime minister Ariel Sharon’s office, promised Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in writing that Israel would deal with. These commitments included illegal settlement building, improvements in the conditions of Palestinian civilians, and a closer oversight over the conduct of soldiers at IDF roadblocks.

One of Spiegel’s tasks was to update the data base on settlement activities. During talks with American officials and non-government organizations such as Peace Now, it emerged that the defense establishment lacked up to date information on the settlements, which was mostly based on data provided by the Civil Administration in the territories.

The lack of updated information stemmed from the fact that the defense establishment preferred not to know what was going on, but was also linked to a number of key officials in the Civil Administration actively deleting information from the data base out of ideological allegiance with the settlers.

Spiegel and his team compared the data available from the Civil Administration to that of the Americans, and carried out dozens of overflights of the territories, using private aircraft at great expense, in order to complete the data base.

The findings of the study, security sources say, show an amazing discrepancy between the Civil Administration’s data and the reality on the ground. The data in Spiegel’s investigation served as the basis for the report on the illegal outposts prepared by attorney Talya Sasson and made public in March 2005.

“Everyone is talking about the 107 outposts,” said a source familiar with the data, “but that is small change. The really big picture is the older settlements, the ‘legal’ ones. The construction there has been ongoing for years, in blatant violation of the law and the regulations of proper governance.”

Three years ago, in talks with the Americans, Israel promised that all new construction in the older settlements would take place near existing neighborhoods. The idea was that construction would be limited to meeting the needs of the settlements’ natural growth, and bringing to an end the out-of-control expansion over territory.

In practice, the data shows that Israel failed to meet its commitments: many new neighborhoods were systematically built on the edge of areas of the settlement’s jurisdiction, which is a much larger territory than the actual planning charts account for.

The data also shows that in many cases the construction was carried out on private Palestinian land. In the masterplans, more often than not, Palestinian properties were included in the construction planned for the future. These included Palestinian properties to which the state had promised access.

However, exploiting the intifada and arguing that the settlers should not be exposed to security risks, Palestinian farmers were prevented access to their properties that were annexed by Israeli settlements.

In many settlements, including Ofra and Mevo Horon, homes have been constructed on private Palestinian land.

“The media is busy with the outposts, but how many of these are really large settlements like Migron? In most cases, it’s a matter of a few mobile homes. Spiegel’s study shows the real situation in the settlements themselves – and it is a lot more serious than what we knew to date,” one of the sources said.

A senior security official expressed concern that with Spiegel’s retirement, the data base will not be updated and the data will be lost.

“The [defense] establishment does not necessarily have an interest in preserving this information. It may cause diplomatic embarrassment vis-a-vis the Americans and cause a political scandal. It is not unlikely that there will be those who will seek to destroy the data,” the senior officer says.

Other relevant sources said it is necessary for an objective, external source, like the State Comptroller’s office, to intervene in this matter.

A statement issued by the Defense Minister’s office in response said that “the matter is being examined internally and staff work will be completed soon, and the parts of the report that can be published will be made available. The Defense Minister will discuss the matter with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.”

Meanwhile, construction in the new outposts has intensified. Sources in the Yesha Council say that since the Lebanon War, “Junior officers on the ground are in our favor and in many instances turn a blind eye regarding mobile homes in place.”

BBC: “Harvest Hostilities”

In the following article the BBC misleadingly writes of “violent clashes” and “frequent clashes” between Palestinian farmers and Jewish settler colonists and the IOF during the olive harvest. However, later in the article the tear gas and live bullets used by the IOF are mentioned with no mention of any violence being used by the Palestinian farmers because there is none. The use of the term “clashes” twice at the beginning of the piece is typical of the biased reporting of Israeli aggression that can be expected from most Western mainstream media.

by Martin Patience, 24th October

Olive harvest sparks tensions

Before dawn, Kanaan al-Jamal, 38, hauls his two young children from their beds and along with his wife they set off to tend the olive groves close to their home.

In olive groves dotted across the rolling West Bank, Palestinian farmers are preparing for the harvest: pruning the trees, collecting spoilt olives, and preparing ground sheets under the trees to catch the fruit.

But the Palestinian farmers are also preparing for violent clashes.

“It’s a difficult time,” says Mr Jamal, referring to the harvest. “But the olive tree is part of our religion; it is part of our culture.”

During the olive picking season, tensions run high between Jewish settlers and the Israeli military on the one hand, and Palestinian farmers on the other.

Access Problems

Many of the West Bank’s olive groves lie close to Jewish settlements and there are frequent clashes between the two sides.

For years settlers have been attacking Palestinian farmers and chopping down their trees.

But this olive picking season is set to be different, insists the Israeli army.

The military has finally realised that it has to offer protection to Palestinian farmers.

A two-year court battle led by human rights groups now means that the Israeli army is required to beef up its protection of Palestinian olive farmers and allow them full access to their lands.

Palestinian farmers often require a permit from the army to visit their lands which lie close to Jewish settlements.

Last month, Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz announced that anyone interfering or harassing the farmers during the picking season would be dealt with severely.

Israeli Human rights groups are praising the move but say more needs to be done.

“I think the military has finally realised that it will have to offer some protection for the Palestinian farmers,” says Sarit Michaeli, a spokeswoman for the Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem.

“But access often depends on commanders in local areas and on a day-to-day basis.”

Mr Jamal, however, says that the Israeli army frequently prevents farmers from his town of Assera Shamiliya – located 5km north of Nablus – reaching their land.

“They say we have to co-ordinate with them,” he says. “But it’s impossible and it often takes days to get a permit. We don’t bother. Why should we? It’s our land.”

Mr Jamal says that Israeli soldiers riding in military jeeps often appear in the town’s groves. The soldiers fire tear gas and live bullets and bark at the villagers through loudspeakers to leave the area, he says.

Bumper Harvest

Some human rights groups accompany the Palestinian farmers to their groves to ensure they can gather their harvest.

Rabbi Ascherman, co-director of Rabbis for Human Rights, insists that the presence of his group helps the Palestinians negotiate with the army and ward off attacks by Jewish settlers.

“But the ideal situation would be if we didn’t need to be there,” he says. “The ideal situation would be if the farmers could just harvest in peace.”

For Mr Jamal and his family the coming weeks mean earlier mornings and harder work. But this is only the start, he says.

Problems arise when Palestinian farmers try and sell their produce because transport restrictions in the West Bank.

“When we start trying to sell the olives it’s a whole new battle with the Israeli authorities,” says Mr Jamal.

“My Name is Rachel Corrie” Opens in New York

The play “My Name is Rachel Corrie” recently opened in New York. Below is transcript to an interview with Rachel’s father and sister about the play that was recently broadcast on Democracy Now!. There are also links that let you listen to or view the interview. After the transcript are links to several reviews of the play from various news sources (only a small selection of many). Finally, remember that Rachel’s Words recently came up with an excellent factsheet about her death that we republished here.

“My Name is Rachel Corrie” Opens in New York

Listen to Segment. Download Show mp3. Watch 128k stream. Watch 256k stream

“My Name is Rachel Corrie” – a play based on the life of the late US peace activist who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer – was scheduled to open last March at the New York Theatre Workshop. But six weeks before opening night, the theater announced it was indefinitely postponing the production. The move that was widely criticized as an act of censorship. On Sunday, the play finally opened at the Minetta Lane Theatre in New York. We play exclusive excerpts of the play, and speak with Rachel Corrie’s father, Craig; her sister, Sarah; and the play’s co-editor, Katharine Viner. [includes rush transcript] Rachel Corrie was killed in Gaza three years ago when she stood in front of an Israeli bulldozer set to demolish a Palestinian home. The play is based on Corrie”s writings before her death.

“My Name is Rachel Corrie” was scheduled to open last March at the New York Theatre Workshop. But six weeks before opening night, the theater announced it was indefinitely postponing production of the play. They cited the current political climate as the reason for the cancelation, pointing to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon”s coma and the election of Hamas.

The move was widely criticized by artists and activists all over the world. At the time, we had a debate on Democracy Now and I read a letter written by Nobel laureate Harold Pinter to the artistic director of the New York Theatre Workshop James Nicola and the theater”s managing director, Lynn Moffat. The co-editor of the play, Katherine Viner, joined us from London.

* Katharine Viner. Co-editor of the play My Name is Rachel Corrie. She is also an editor at the London newspaper The Guardian.

* Craig Corrie. Rachel Corrie’s father.

* Sarah Corrie. Rachel Corrie’s older sister.

* Excerpts from “My Name is Rachel Corrie.”

* Excerpt of the documentary, “Rachel Corrie: An American Conscience.” It was directed by Yahya Barakat.

TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: This past Sunday, the play, My Name is Rachel Corrie, finally opened in the United States, here in New York at the Minetta Lane Theatre.

MEGAN DODDS, as RACHEL CORRIE: This realization that I will live my life in a world where I have privileges. I can’t cool boiling waters in Russia. I can’t be Picasso. I can’t be Jesus. I can’t save the planet single-handedly.

AMY GOODMAN: Rachel Corrie was killed in Gaza on March 16, 2003, nearly three years ago, when she stood in front of an Israeli bulldozer set to demolish a Palestinian home. The play is based on Rachel Corrie’s writings before her death. My Name is Rachel Corrie was scheduled to open last March at the New York Theatre Workshop, but six weeks before opening night the theater announced it was indefinitely postponing production of the play. They cited the current political climate as the reason for the cancellation, pointing to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s coma and the election of Hamas. The move was widely criticized by artists and activists around the world.

At the time, we had an exclusive debate on Democracy Now!, and I read a letter written by Nobel laureate Harold Pinter to the artistic director of the New York Theatre Workshop, James Nicola, and the theater’s managing director, Lynn Moffat. The co-editor of the play, Katharine Viner, joined us on the line from London.

AMY GOODMAN: There’s a letter today in The New York Times. It’s written by Harold Pinter, who is the Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, Gillian Slovo, Stephen Fry, and it’s dated March 20. The letter was signed by 18 others, and it says, “We are Jewish writers who supported the Royal Court production of My Name Is Rachel Corrie. We are dismayed by the decision of the New York Theatre Workshop to cancel or postpone the play’s production. We believe that this is an important play, particularly, perhaps, for an American audience that too rarely has an opportunity to see and judge for itself the material it contends with.

“In London it played to sell-out houses. Critics praised it. Audiences found it intensely moving. So what is it about Rachel Corrie’s writings, her thoughts, her feelings, her confusions, her idealism, her courage, her search for meaning in life — what is it that New York audiences must be protected from?”

The letter goes on to say, “The various reasons given by the workshop — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s coma, the election of Hamas, the circumstances of Rachel Corrie’s death, the ‘symbolism’ of her tale — make no sense in the context of this play and the crucial issues it raises about Israeli military activity in the Occupied Territories.”

And the final line of the letter says, “Rachel Corrie gave her life standing up against injustice. A theater with such a fine history should have had the courage to give New York theatergoers the chance to experience her story for themselves.” Signed Gillian Slovo, Harold Pinter, Stephen Fry, London, March 20, 2006. Harold Pinter this year won the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Our guests, Lynn Moffat is managing director of the New York Theatre Workshop, in our studio with Jim Nicola, artistic director; and in the London studio, Katharine Viner, co-editor and co-producer of My Name is Rachel Corrie. Lynn Moffat, your response to the letter?

LYNN MOFFAT: To the letter? It’s a beautiful letter. It actually addresses the issues that we were concerned about. We believe in Rachel’s voice, as they believe in Rachel’s voice. We want it heard by a New York audience, but we want the voice heard by the New York audience, not the ancillary events that can pollute that voice. So that is the purpose of the methodology that New York Theatre Workshop employs when it uses — when it develops context for a play. I know “context” has become a much maligned word in the last few weeks, but that is what we do, because ultimately the purpose of the workshop in producing art is to foster community dialogue, and to do that requires a lot of work just beyond the play that is seen on stage.

AMY GOODMAN: But now, you did agree to produce the play, and it was going to have its opening night tonight?

LYNN MOFFAT: And we still want to produce the play.

JAMES NICOLA: Yep.

LYNN MOFFAT: We still want to produce the play, and the word “indefinite,” we don’t know where that word came from. We really — and we never canceled the play. We were having a conversation with our colleagues at the Royal Court about the difficulties that we were having, not only just with the research that we were doing about the project and about the play, but also about, you know, contracts and budgets and fundraising, and all that sort of stuff.

JAMES NICOLA: Visas.

LYNN MOFFAT: Visas. We were having a conversation with them, and then Katharine’s letter appeared in the Guardian.

AMY GOODMAN: Katharine Viner, your response.

KATHARINE VINER: Yeah. I mean, I’m actually not a co-producer of the play. I was just the co-editor, so — but as I understand it, we had everything set. Our tickets — our flight tickets were booked. I was due to fly out yesterday to New York. The production schedule was finalized. Both sides of the Atlantic had agreed on a press release that was going to go out to the press, announcing the production of My Name is Rachel Corrie, and then the Royal Court, as I was told, received a telephone call saying that the play was to be postponed indefinitely. That’s where the phrase came from.

AMY GOODMAN: Katharine Viner, speaking on Democracy Now! in March. She joins us now in our firehouse studio. She is the co-editor of My Name is Rachel Corrie, also an editor at the London newspaper, The Guardian, also joined by Rachel’s father and sister, Craig and Sarah. We welcome you all to Democracy Now! As you watch that, Katharine Viner, you were speaking to us from London, had planned to be in New York at the time, and yet, here you are, and the play is being shown now at the Minetta Lane Theatre. What happened?

KATHARINE VINER: Well, we’re so delighted that it’s finally on — the play is finally on in New York. We always said that it’s an American play. Rachel was always just wholly American and should be heard here, and I think it just shows that the whole controversy was needless. The play has been very well received. Ticket sales are sort of through the roof. Word of mouth is fantastic, and it just shows that New York wanted to see this play all along.

AMY GOODMAN: Sarah, you’re a key part of this play. You are [Rachel]’s older sister, and you’re the person who started this process of collating your sister’s emails. Can you talk about that process?

SARAH CORRIE: Yes, actually we received an email from the Royal Court Theatre shortly after Rachel was killed, asking if they could do some sort of a work based off of Rachel’s emails. And at the time it was just too emotional for us to be going through Rachel’s writing. We knew there was a vast amount of material there, but it also felt very important to us. Rachel was a writer. She had always wanted to be published. I think it was one of the dreams that she had, and so I felt like it was something that I could give back to my sister in order to sort of allow that part of her life to still move forward.

So it was approximately a year after we first got the email from the Royal Court Theatre that I sat down and was able to sit down with Rachel’s journals. She was — in the play, she describes herself as a very messy girl, so these journals were in tubs, they were in closets, they were in places all over the house.

AMY GOODMAN: You live in and she grew up in Olympia, Washington?

SARAH CORRIE: In Olympia, Washington, and we actually both lived together. She had moved back into the house that we grew up in, with my husband and I, and lived together for the last four months before she went over to Rafah, so she was living in the home with my husband and I at that time. So I was able to sit down with those journals. I’d take an evening to just look at the journals, read them, gain sort of the emotional need that I had for myself to understand the context, and then the next day, I sat down with a glass of wine next to me and just typed them out without trying to edit anything, sort of like a secretary would, just to get the words down on paper, and that is what became the text that we then sent to the Royal Court for editing at that time.

AMY GOODMAN: I watched the play last night at the Minetta Lane Theatre, and afterwards you all spoke. You talked to the audience and answered questions. And one of the key parts of this play is the list that Rachel makes. Can you talk about the process of going through these and deciding whether on earth the Royal Court Theatre would be interested in Rachel’s lists, like when she’s going to do her laundry?

SARAH CORRIE: Yes. Rachel throughout all her writing had these sort of what most people would look at, say these are odd little lists, but interesting in a way, and I’d see this things within her writing and look at them and say, “Well, what possibly could somebody do with these?” But at the same time, they struck my interest. I don’t consider myself a writer. I don’t consider myself someone that would be good at creating a piece of theater, and I told myself, I don’t have the right to edit that out. They were interesting to me, and so I ended up just typing them up along with everything else, putting them in, and then that became sort of the piece that wove the different aspects of the play together.

AMY GOODMAN: Katharine Viner, you are careful to say you’re not the playwright here, but that you co-edited Rachel’s letters. What about these lists? Can you talk about them, and for people who don’t understand what we mean by lists? What’s on these lists?

KATHARINE VINER: Well, some of the lists are sort of “five people I wish I’d met who are dead,” or “five people to hang out with in eternity,” and that was very entertaining. Some lists are quite sort of functional, but actually convey something very revealing. So there may be a list about tasks to do in Gaza, which sort of showed you what life is like under occupation, just from a list. And it was interesting when we were editing the play, how they worked dramatically, these lists, because it became a kind of recurring motif for, somehow, something you knew about Rachel, that she loved making these lists, and you could chart her sort of psychological progress through these lists and how they developed while she was there. They also worked really well on stage, I think, and the audience gets very involved in them.

AMY GOODMAN: So, the people she wanted to see who are dead. Jesus?

KATHARINE VINER: Jesus, E.E. Cummings, Gertrude Stein, Martin Luther King, Josephine — a selection of those anyway, wasn’t it?

AMY GOODMAN: Well, this is an excerpt from My Name is Rachel Corrie. In this scene, Rachel sits down and reads an email from her father.

MEGAN DODDS, as RACHEL CORRIE: Rachel, I find writing to you hard, but not thinking about you impossible, so I don’t write, but I do bore my friends at lunch, giving vent to my fear. I am afraid for you, and I think I have reason to be, but I am also proud of you, very proud. But as Don Remfert says, I’d just as soon be proud of somebody else’s daughter.

AMY GOODMAN: An excerpt of the play, My Name is Rachel Corrie. Craig, as you listen to that, your daughter, Rachel, reading your letter. Do you remember writing that email?

CRAIG CORRIE: Oh, yes. Chills are going down me right now. I had such a hard time. That’s the only email I wrote to Rachel while she was in Rafah. I’m a Vietnam vet, and when I was in Vietnam, of course, Cindy and I, my wife and I, were corresponding by mail, and that was easy for me, but I think it was hard for her. And I was learning from Rachel being over there that it was hard, because I didn’t know how she was. We were talking by telephone, and so when she was on the telephone I knew that she was okay for that period of time, but I was so worried about Rachel after she got over there.

When she started reporting about what she saw, the bullet holes next to the windows and stuff, I became extremely frightened for her, because I recognized, this is a military that’s out of control, and I know how much effort I spent in Vietnam to keep the people around me in control and understanding that the other people there are human beings, and I didn’t see anything about what Rachel was reporting that indicated that, so I became frightened that somebody would just needlessly harm her or the people that she was with.

And so, I finally got the nerve to write this email to her, and so it always chokes me up, because I had not envisioned her reading this email until I saw Megan doing it on the play, and then it’s — her reply is the last thing that we ever heard from Rachel, and so her reply in an email back to me, that’s our last contact with Rachel.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go now to another clip, to Rachel Corrie in her own words. This is actually not from the play. This is an excerpt of the documentary, Rachel Corrie: An American Conscience, which was directed by Yahya Barakat. It includes excerpts of Rachel speaking in Gaza about the plight of the Palestinian people.

RACHEL CORRIE: Sometimes it takes awhile for it to set in what is happening here, because I think many of the people here, they try to maintain what they can of their lives, and I think — I don’t know — maybe it has to do with protecting their children, that they try to be happy, joke with their children. So sometimes it takes time to — it’s hard to hold in your mind, you know, the complete reality of what’s happening here. Sometimes I’m sitting down to dinner with people, and I just realize that there is a massive military machine surrounding them and trying to kill these people that I’m having dinner with, these families that I’m sitting down to eat with and who are being very generous and kind to me, and their children here, who are incredibly threatened, living lives that no child ever should have to live. And so, I feel a lot of horror. Really, I feel a lot of horror about the situation.

AMY GOODMAN: Rachel Corrie being interviewed in Gaza. Craig, when was this?

CRAIG CORRIE: That was two days before Rachel was killed, and I’d just like to take people’s attention to the scene behind Rachel. That used to be a neighborhood. She was on Abu Jamil’s house. Abu Jamil no longer has a house, and, of course, Rachel is no longer alive. But that’s the destruction that’s going on and was going on in Gaza.

AMY GOODMAN: The Israeli military bulldozer that crushed her — you are suing a U.S. company, Caterpillar, that made that bulldozer. Where does that suit stand?

CRAIG CORRIE: Well, of course, in the first place, that suit is predicated on the fact that Caterpillar knew that the bulldozers that they were supplying to the Israeli military were used to aid and abet in human rights violations. But at this point, the case actually has been dismissed, and it was filed in Weston, Washington, in the U.S. Superior Court in Weston, Washington, and the judge dismissed that and, I think, relied — I am not a lawyer, but he relied on a misinterpretation of U.S. law, because essentially, under this judge’s interpretation, unless the corporation, Caterpillar, actually profited from the actual human rights violation, they can’t be held accountable.

So if, for instance, I was in McDonald’s and somebody comes in and starts shooting in McDonald’s, runs out of bullets, and I sell them more bullets, I still wouldn’t be responsible for that person’s actions after they start to shoot again. So, of course, we’ve appealed that to the Ninth Circuit. And the appeals have been filed, but oral arguments in front of the Ninth Circuit have not yet occurred.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Sarah, to see this play — I was watching you. I was watching your family watch the play last night at the Minetta Lane Theatre. Is it a little bit like your sister is brought back to life?

SARAH CORRIE: No. It can never be Rachel up there on the stage, and I think when we first saw the play, we realized that. We weren’t expecting it to be Rachel on the play, but it’s a very accurate and honest view, I think, of what Rachel was feeling at that time, I mean, the person that she is. So, yes, I mean, it’s difficult as a family to watch. I think every family member that’s been there to see that play says for exactly that reason it’s difficult to watch the play, because Rachel’s not with us and you’re seeing somebody up on the stage bringing her words back to life and bringing her — a little bit of her personality and her humor back to life. And those are the kinds of things that you miss so much on just a day-to-day basis. So it is. It’s very difficult, but it’s also very warming at the same time to just have those words, either reading them to ourselves or up there on the stage. It — you know, it keeps Rachel with us just a little bit longer.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you all for being with us. Again, the play, My Name is Rachel Corrie, is now being performed at the Minetta Lane Theatre in New York. Sarah and Craig Corrie, thank you. Katharine Viner, thanks for joining us.

List of reviews

The opinions expressed in these reviews do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ISM.

* The Jewish Week
* Indymedia New York
* TheaterMania
* Variety
* NY Daily News