Category: Press Releases - Page 330 - International Solidarity Movement

The Ariel Finger and its Impacts

by Nijmie of the International Women’s Peace Service

Ariel settlement – the strategy then and now
The settlement of Ariel was established in 1978. Its founding population of forty settlers has burgeoned due to its strategic location (close to Tel Aviv and approximately in the middle of the West Bank) and generous government aid to a present population of almost 20,000. Over the years Ariel has been built on land expropriated from nearby Palestinian villages and towns including Salfit, Yasouf, Iskaka, Marda, Hares, and Kifl Hares. The built up area of the settlement covers about 750 acres (3,000 dumans), but its municipal boundaries (areas slated for expansion) cover an additional 2,700 acres (10,800 dunams). It is situated (at its furthest point East) approximately 22 km inside the Green Line, adjacent to the intersection of Israeli bypass roads #60 (which crosses the West Bank from North to South and #5 (the ‘trans-Samaria’ highway).

Ariel is the first reported case of colonizing efforts in the Salfit district, which at the present time has a 1:1 ratio of Israeli settlers to Palestinian residents. The Salfit district has become an extremely important location for Israeli settlement policy, and now Israeli settlements (24) outnumber Palestinian villages (22) and cover almost 10% of the land area of Salfit. Ariel settlement is the most well known and largest of the Salfit settlements, and with its own college, municipal court, and police station, has long been thought of within Israeli society as just another ‘town’, rather than a settlement in the West Bank. Some of the factors that help to explain Ariel’s significance within Israeli settlement policy include the abundance of water and agricultural resources in the Salfit district (known as the breadbasket of the West Bank). Additionally, a major ‘Israeli population center’ in the geographical heart of the West Bank ultimately acts as a ‘fact on the ground’, cementing Israel’s control of the area and acting as an impediment to Palestinian territorial contiguity.

Impact of Ariel on surrounding Palestinian communities
The presence of Ariel has effectively limited the development of the town of Salfit (pop. 10,000), which serves as the ‘urban center’ for the entire district. The location of Ariel forms a physical barrier for most of the residents of the district who (since the year 2000) must travel around the entire length of the settlement’s municipal boundary to reach Salfit. Palestinian residents from Haris, Kifl Hares, Deir Istiya, Mas’ha, Biddya, Sarta, Deir Ballut, Azzawiya, Qira, Marda, Zeita and Zeita-Jemai’in must travel a minimum of an additional 15 kilometers. Additionally, Ariel’s massive land area prevents the town of Salfit from being able to expand and younger residents therefore have a disincentive to remain once they are old enough to begin having families. The presence of Ariel, it’s large municipal area, surrounding bypass roads, and security apparatus effectively contribute to the underdevelopment of the entire Salfit district by limiting access to most Palestinian residents to the cultural, economic, and municipal resources of Salfit town.

The Ariel Finger
In June 2004 land razing began on the lands of Salfit and Iskaka (another village contiguous with the Ariel boundary). This 9 km section of the work is slated to confiscate approximately 6,243 acres (24,972 dunams) from Haris, Kifl Hares, Marda, Iskaka and Salfit, with over 800 acres isolated from the village of Marda alone. Appeals raised in the Israeli High Court temporarily halted the work but it was resumed again on January 24th, 2005. On February 10th 2005, the Supreme Court issued a ‘temporary injunction’ that again halted the work, but that decision was again reversed on May 16 and work has begun afresh.

As Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery has recently noted, it is no coincidence that the Sharon government is giving orders to speed up construction of the segregation wall while media attention is focused on the ‘disengagement’. Effectively, in exchange Gaza’s four kilometers, hundreds more will be confiscated inside the West Bank for the construction of the segregation wall. Publicly the Gaza pullout is being hailed as an important step toward a peaceful resolution, however the irrevocable effects of the separation wall are a direct contradiction to this. The Ariel finger, due to its drastic nature has even prompted criticism from the U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher criticized this section in June 2004, saying that it would make Palestinian life more difficult and undermine any remaining chances for Palestinian statehood.

Palestinian Response
In addition to taking their case to the courts, Palestinian residents from the Salfit district have organized popular resistance to the building of the wall. The necessity for grassroots resistance is clear since even the condemnation of the international community, as expressed through the ruling of the International Court of Justice (July 2004) has not succeeded in putting pressure on Israel to stop construction of the wall. The ruling stated that the segregation wall is illegal and must be dismantled, and any damages done must be compensated. The plan for the ‘Ariel finger’ is perhaps one of the most glaring examples of violations of human rights and the environment to date in the building of the segregation wall. Grassroots mobilizations have materialized from effected villages, and assisted by Israeli and international activists, Palestinians have sought to lay claim to their lands and prevent further destruction of their property and livelihoods. Over fifty nonviolent actions have taken place in the Salfit district over the last year in opposition to the wall. Whether direct actions intended to prevent work from taking place, or symbolic actions designed to deliver a message through media attention, the Popular Committee Against the Wall in Salfit has helped to organize a population that is frustrated from over two decades of being forced to adjust to the negative impacts of the presence of Ariel settlement.

Marda: Resistance and Uncertainty
One of the villages most directly affected by the presence of Ariel is Marda (pop. 2,000) which is situated directly to the North, with settler Highway #5 forming the other boundary for the village’s built up area. Marda village has suffered a long history of abuse because of the presence of Ariel settlement on the hill above it. Land confiscation, uprooted trees, settler violence, and the effects of pollution from the waste of the settlement are all unfortunate consequences that the residents of Marda have had to contend with.

Much of Marda’s agricultural land has been expropriated for Ariel settlement and the bypass road. Farmers from Marda still have pockets of cultivated land within the settlement which have effectively been annexed to the settlement. Additionally, cultivated land that abuts Ariel’s municipal boundaries is dangerous for farmers to reach, and international accompaniment is often requested in these areas. Therefore the mere proximity to the settlement renders additional hundreds of acres of cultivated land inaccessible to Palestinian farmers who are dependent on this land for the livelihood of their families. Waste water created by the settlement has contaminated the underground water resources of the entire district, and in the case of Marda, Ariel’s trash heap is perched precariously on a hill overlooking the village.

Since the destruction began on June 1, cutting a swathe across the length of the hill above the village and below Ariel, at least 1,000 olive trees owned by farming families in Marda have already been uprooted. When the work began, farmers, accompanied by International and Israeli activists, attempted to reach the affected lands several times to assess the extent of the damage and to try to intervene to prevent work from continuing. However, these nonviolent activities were met with gunfire from private security guards, and later tear gas and sound bombs from the army. During the peaceful protests that followed (conducted primarily in the village) the army has continued to respond with violence and the village has had to suffer from periodic invasions and curfews as a result.

Resistance is made all the more difficult by the fact that Marda’s land beneath Ariel settlement is on a steep hill, making it very threatening for anyone to approach the work. Due to the intense repression by the army, farmers have largely ceased to try to reach the bulldozers. Peaceful demonstrations have continued, organized by the Popular Committee Against the Wall in Salfit, but they are primarily located within the village and do not attempt to interrupt the work of the bulldozers.

Marda: Personal Profiles
The small village of Marda is unique in that many of its residents have lived outside the West Bank in Venezuela and are bilingual in Spanish and Arabic. Like the rest of Salfit, agriculture is both a source of income as well as part of the Palestinian cultural fabric. Every family has some land in the proximity of the village and includes family members who are full time farmers. Because Marda residents have been living in the shadow of Ariel settlement for so long, many have the sense that ‘Ariel gets what it wants’. Coupled with the danger of attempting to intervene in the work, the situation leaves village residents extremely worried about their future, while simultaneously doubtful about the possibility of preventing the completion of the Ariel finger.

Abu Samih

Abu Samih is a farmer from Marda who spent 10 years going back and forth between his village and Chicago. Shortly after September 11 as he arrived in O’Hare airport, he was detained by the INS for thirty days. Planning on applying for political asylum, he decided to return to his home rather than spending time in detention indefinitely. Abu Samih has 55 dunams (about 12 acres) of olive trees that are located inside Ariel’s settlement boundary that he cannot access. For Abu Samih, the presence of Ariel settlement acts as a ‘cancer in the body’ eating away at agricultural land and disrupting the livelihoods of all of the residents of Marda. Still, he is committed to non-violence, and doesn’t believe in harming anyone. With five children total, and two studying at university, Abu Samih is very concerned about the future survival of his family if the Ariel finger is completed. He sees a dire vision of de facto ‘transfer’ for the residents of Marda.

Jamila

Jamila is the eldest daughter of Abu Samih and speaks excellent English. Like her father, Jamila is not optimistic about the future of the village. If the International Court of Justice Ruling means nothing, it is hard for Jamila to imagine what the simple farmers of Marda can do to change their fate. Her wish is to finish her education and get a good job. Despite her worries, Jamila relies on cultural wisdom which says that no matter how bad things get, there is always a possibility that they will get better. She has been profoundly impacted by interactions with Israeli activists who have come to the village to support the nonviolent demonstrations. “When I sit and talk with these Israelis I feel that in that moment I can transcend history,” she remarks. “I do not hate Israeli people”.

Um Amir

During the Palestinian olive harvest of 2001, Um Amir’s husband Abu Amir was harvesting olives about 3km from the center of the village, on Marda’s land close to Ariel settlement. Suddenly he heard barking dogs and looked around only to see guard dogs from settlement security running toward him. Abu Amir began to run in the direction of the village, trying to escape the dogs. At the edge of the village, Abu Amir collapsed of a heart attack, and died. Um Amir and her seven children lost their father as well as all of their land because of Ariel settlement. They had 20 dunams (5 acres) of olive trees as well as the same amount of land not cultivated with trees that was confiscated in the building of the settlement. She has lost income from the loss of her land as well as the loss of her husband, who used to work in Israel as a metal worker. She is also not optimistic about stopping the Ariel finger.

Abu Hassan

Abu Hassan is the head of the Popular Committee Against the Wall in the Salfit District. Prompted by the negative impacts of the occupation and settlement policy, he and others from Marda initiated a permaculture and sustainable agriculture center in the village that opened its doors in November of 1993. Based on the idea of ‘local resources for local needs’, the center was designed to support farmers to maintain their self-sufficiency despite confiscation of their lands. The center, funded by organizations in Germany, Canada, the U.S., the U.K., Holland and Australia, became a regional hub of training and rural development. Over three hundred varieties of native seeds were cultivated and preserved, and farmers were trained in composting and the use of organic pesticides. Agricultural roads were opened, plants and trees distributed, training courses in irrigation and grey water recycling were conducted. Agricultural engineers from universities all over the West Bank came to Marda to do additional training. The center also provided training courses for women including computer and English language skills. The success of the center and its ability to provide a measure of self-sufficiency for the local population sparked the ire of the occupation forces, including the settler population and the army. On November 8, 2000, at 5:00 a.m., after seven years of successful work, Israeli soldiers invaded and attacked the center. They destroyed the nursery, the seed bank, the computers and all of the files. Some of the activities of the center continue, but they still have not rebuilt the site which is a broken-down shell of its former self and a testament to the vulnerability of Marda, sandwiched between Ariel settlement and the bypass road #5.

Sources: Applied Reseach Institute of Jerusalem (ARIJ); B’Tselem, “Land Grab: Israel’s Settlement Policy in the West Bank”, May, 2002

IWPS is a team of international women working on a project of third party nonviolent intervention in the Salfit district of the West Bank. Living and working here 24 hours a day allows us to witness the effects of the occupation firsthand. Beyond the reach of the media and even Israeli activists, we are in a unique position to be able to document the daily realities of life for the residents of this district, with respect to freedom of movement, the economy, the construction of the wall, settlement expansion, pollution, and other aspects of the occupation. IWPS is available to lead tours of journalists who are interested in this region.

Threat to divest is Church tool in Israeli fight

by Laurie Goodstein, The New York Times
August 6th, 2005
www.catdestroyshomes.org/article.php?id=454

The Presbyterian Church U.S.A. announced Friday that it would press four American corporations to stop providing military equipment and technology to Israel for use in the occupation of the Palestinian territories, and that if the companies did not comply, the church would take a vote to divest its stock in them.

The companies – Caterpillar, Motorola, ITT Industries and United Technologies – were selected from a list of several dozen possibilities by a church investment committee that met Friday in Seattle. The Presbyterians accused these companies of selling helicopters, cellphones, night vision equipment and other items Israel uses to enforce its occupation.

In an effort to appear even-handed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the church committee also included Citigroup on its list of targets, alleging it had a connection to a bank accused of having a role in funneling money from Islamic charities to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The church said it included Citigroup because it was mentioned in an article in The Wall Street Journal.

A spokeswoman for Citigroup called the church’s assertion “an outrage,” a reaction echoed at several of the other corporations.

The Presbyterian Church U.S.A. is in the forefront of a campaign now spreading to other mainline Protestant churches to use corporate divestment as a tactic in the Middle East conflict, a tactic that is roiling relations with Jewish groups.

The Episcopal Church U.S.A., the United Church of Christ, two regions of the United Methodist Church, as well as international groups like the World Council of Churches and the Anglican Consultative Council have all urged consideration of divestment or economic pressure in recent months, though the tone and emphasis of each resolution varies. The Disciples of Christ passed a resolution last month calling on Israel to tear down the barrier it has built to wall off the occupied territories, and other churches are considering similar resolutions.

Some Jewish groups accuse the churches of singling out Israel for blame and failing to address the Palestinians’ role in perpetuating the violence. Several have even said they see anti-Semitism behind the churches’ moves.

The Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., said in an interview: “It’s not a campaign to divest from the state of Israel. We’re fully committed to the state of Israel. But it is a campaign to divest from particular activities that are doing damage and creating injustice and violence, whether that’s the building of the separation barrier, construction related to the occupation, or weapons and materials that lead to suicide bombings.”

Many American churches used divestment in the 1980’s to pressure the South African government to end apartheid. But applying the tactic to Israel has alarmed many American Jewish groups and caused a breach in what has been a long-term alliance between Jews and mainline Protestant churches, like the Presbyterians, that have leaned politically liberal. In decades past, Jewish and Protestant groups have worked together on a range of social issues, from racism to global poverty to women’s rights.

“This is a brilliantly organized political campaign to hurt Israel, and it’s not going to help a single Palestinian,” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish watchdog group based in Los Angeles. “When you look at the list of companies, this is basically a recipe for Israel to disarm.”

Rabbi Cooper said the Protestant churches were ignoring the current “reality on the ground” – that Israel is preparing to withdraw this month from Gaza and remove settlements there. “Instead of divesting, these churches should be investing,” he said. “There is so much humanitarian need on the ground in the Holy Land. We’re not telling them: ‘Stay out of it. It’s not your business.’ There’s a ton of work to be done.”

He called the churches’ actions “functionally anti-Semitic.” But he said that after attending the conventions of the United Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ this year, he concluded that the resolutions were being “rammed through” by denominational leaders and were not reflective of the churches’ grassroots membership.

However, David Elcott, director of interreligious affairs in the United States for the American Jewish Committee, said that he made a distinction between the different church resolutions. He said he found the Presbyterian Church’s resolution “morally reprehensible” because it singled out Israel for blame, but that the United Church of Christ had been more evenhanded, condemning violence in the Middle East no matter the source.

The Presbyterian Church owns hundreds of thousands of shares of stock in the five companies through its pension fund for retired church workers and through church foundations. It did not say how much money it has invested in these companies, but judging by the numbers of shares it said it owns, the church’s investment in the companies totals about $60 million in holdings.

The Presbyterian Church’s committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment has brought similar economic pressure against other companies accused of abetting human rights abuses in countries like China, the Sudan, Myanmar, Nigeria and Guatemala. But church staff members said this was the first time it had focused on companies doing business in Israel.

The Presbyterians gave a variety of reasons for choosing these five companies. It accused Caterpillar of selling Israel heavy equipment used for demolishing Palestinian homes, and of constructing roads and infrastructure in the occupied territories and Israeli settlements.

The company released a statement saying: “For the past four years, activists have wrongly included Caterpillar in a publicity campaign aimed at advancing their much larger political agendas. Over that same period of time we’ve repeatedly evaluated our position, as have our shareholders, and determined that while the protests occasionally succeed in getting headlines, they neither change the facts nor our position.”

The Presbyterian committee said in its announcement that it included United Technologies Corporation, a military contractor, because a subsidiary provides helicopters used by the Israeli military “in attacks in the occupied territories against suspected Palestinian terrorists.”

A company spokesman, Paul Jackson, responded by e-mail: “UTC has been widely recognized as an ethical and responsible corporation. Work on military programs is stringently regulated by the U.S. government, and UTC complies wholly with all policies and related regulations.”

The church said it identified Motorola because the company has a contract to develop wireless encrypted communications for the Israeli military in the territories and is a “majority investor in one of Israel’s four cell phone companies.”

Norman Sandler, a manager for Motorola on global issues, said the church’s action “came completely out of the blue.” He said the company supplies radio products to Israel, as well as to many Arab countries.

ITT also made the church’s list because, the committee said, it supplies the Israeli military with “communications, electronic and night vision equipment used by its forces in the occupied territories.” A spokesman for ITT did not respond to a message left on Friday afternoon.

Leah Johnson, a spokeswoman for Citigroup, said: “Any assertion that Citigroup supports terrorism in any way is an outrage. We take all possible measures to ensure that our institution is not used by criminals or as a conduit to fund terrorist activities.”

Despite the bitterness the divestment moves have evoked among Jewish organizations, Christian and Jewish leaders alike said these developments had prompted intensive and productive dialogue sessions both at the national level and between “hundreds” of churches and synagogues nationwide.

A delegation of prominent Jewish and Christian leaders is set to travel to Jerusalem in September.

Bil’in villagers build a wall of their own to protest land annexation

By ISMedia

Villagers from Bil’in on Friday, along with Israeli and international peace activists and Internationals dressed in black, will participate in a demonstration against the Israel’s Annexation Wall, currently under constructed in Bil’in.

Completion of the Wall could mean death of the Palestinian identity, security and any chance for sovereignty. That message is the theme of this week’s demonstration. People clothed in the color of mourning, will carry a replica of the Wall to the construction site. A depiction of a Palestinian family will be tied, to the panels of the replica which will also include a guillotine over their heads, just in case the message isn’t already clear enough.

Activists will wear black shirts with stark white numbers, each one a researched statistic detailing what sort of loss is in store for the Palestinian people because of the wall.

Israel has placed the route of the wall so that 60 percent of Bil’in’s land is located on the Israeli side of the wall. This way, more land is available to enlarge the nearby Matitiyahu Mizrah settlement.

Last week, nonviolent activists were met with tear gas and sound grenades as they tried to place a stuffed cloth snake with a dove in its mouth, representing the way the Annexation Wall is destroying any prospect of peace. 16 people were detained at the demonstration; 14 Israelis and 2 internationals. One international was kicked in the head by an IDF soldier.

Who is terrorizing whom?

Photo courtesy of Operation Dove
(At-Tuwani, Southern Hebron Hills, Palestinian Occupied Territories) IDF soldiers, without respecting Israeli or international laws, assault a Palestinian shepherd. The soldiers claimed he was allowing his sheep to graze on land under military closure.

August 1

by Operation Dove volunteers

A group of shepherds from the village of At-Tuwani, in the Southern Hebron Hills of Occupied Palestine was grazing their herds on village land in the valley near Kharruba, in front of the illegal Havat Ma’on settler outpost on August 1.

At around 10 a.m., the settlement’s security guards came and immediately called the Israeli Army. The patrol arrived and immediately ordered the
shepherds to leave the area.

One shepherd offered the officer in charge a map that he had received from District Civil Liaison Office, showing that the area in question was not a “closed military zone.” The officer quickly grabbed the map, commented that ”this is cow’s shit,” tore it up and threw away.

Five soldiers assaulted then assaulted the shepherd, beating him. Volunteers with Operation Dove and Christian Peacemaker Teams who had witnessed the incident called Israeli Police, who arrived an hour later.

When policemen arrived, the IDF officer accused the shepherd of having assaulted soldiers. The shepherd was arrested and taken to the Kiriat Arba settlement station to file a complaint, where he was held until Israeli friends posted bail. An Operation Dove volunteer’s testimony was not allowed, and in fact, that activist was told by police to “go back to Italy.”

After being released, the shepherd went to a hospital in Hebron due to liver pain from the beating from the soldiers.

The Disengagement and the Palestinians

PHOTO BY: Nir Elias/Reuters
Opponents to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan (L) dance in front of Israeli soldiers (R) as they secure the fence of Kfar Maimon July 20, 2005. Many of the thousands of rightist protesters massed at a village in southern Israel will head home after police blocked them from marching on Gaza settlements, a settler leader said on July 20.

by Gershon Baskin
Courtesy of Arabic Media Internet Network

There is no doubt that the Israeli disengagement has created some serious dilemmas and problems for the Palestinians. First, this is a unilateral step by Israel designed at a time when Israel declared that there was no partner. It was launched by Sharon to take attention away from Geneva and a much wider internationally supported campaign for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Sharon has claimed a space in the international community as a political hero, previously perceived there as a demon. Now leaders from the entire world are waiting on line to meet him.

Despite the international support that Sharon has received, the disengagement is perceived by most people as an attempt by Sharon to give away Gaza in order to tighten his grip on the West Bank. It is not clear if Gaza will really be detached from Israel – whether Palestinians will be able to move freely between Gaza and the West Bank – between the two parts of Palestine which are legally perceived to be one integrative territory. It is not clear if Israel will withdraw from the Gaza-Egypt border, whether a seaport will be allowed to function, whether the Gaza airport will be allowed to work, and many other open questions.

In the north of the West Bank it is unclear if Israel will turn over the vacated territory, roughly 2.5 times the size of Gaza, to the Palestinian Authority, transforming it into area “a” and under full Palestinian control, or if Israel will continue to hold full control and prevent Palestinians from moving freely in the area.

For the sake of argument, or for strategic game-playing, let us assume for a moment that Israel will completely withdraw from Gaza and that they will relinquish all control over Gaza, its international borders, its airspace, its land and it natural resources. If that is the case, Israel will claim that the occupation over Gaza has ended. At that point, a vacuum of sovereignty will exist, and while Israel was never sovereign in Gaza, the question must be raised of whether or not the Palestinian Authority becomes the sovereign power and if that sovereignty is translated into statehood.

There is no need to declare a Palestinian State, that was done on November 15, 1988 and more than 100 countries recognized that state. Of those who did not recognize the State were all of the original 13 EU countries, the United States, Canada and Israel. The Palestinians could re-issue their Declaration of Independence, adding a chapter on borders indicating that the borders of the State are the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as the Capital of Palestine. A declaration as such would in fact be helpful to any future peace process. It sets in stone, so to speak, the price of peace that Israel must pay and it removes any doubts about Palestinian plans for expanding the State into Israeli territory.

Palestine must then gain full membership in the United Nations and Mahmoud Abbas should call on Israel to recognize the State of Palestine and even co-sponsor the resolution for UN Membership. If Israel did recognize the new State, there is no doubt that the United States would as well. Even without Israeli recognition, there is a chance that the United States would, and even without US recognition, the rest of the world would recognize Palestine and establish embassies in a provisional capital.

In the Twelfth Session of the Palestine National Council in Cairo in 1974, a resolution was passed stating that the Palestinians would establish their state in any part of Palestine liberated from Israel. After 1974 this became the policy of the mainstream of the Palestinian National Movement. If Gaza is to become completed liberated from Israeli occupation, it is incumbent on the Palestinians to claim sovereignty there and to create real statehood as the first stage of enacting the Palestinian state in all of the declared territories within its borders. In the absence of Israeli control over Gaza, Palestinians must claim sovereignty and must rule there as a State. This is not the end of the struggle and a Palestinian State established first in Gaza does not in any way prevent the Palestinians from working towards the complete fulfillment of their sovereignty in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Many Palestinians fears that if they adopt this strategy they will end up with a State in Gaza only. They fear that the international community will forget about the Palestinian issue and that the occupation by Israel of the West Bank will be strengthened. This, in my opinion is highly unlikely. If the sides do not get back to the negotiating table in the framework of the Road Map or in the framework of permanent status negotiations, we are likely to see additional Israeli unilateral disengagements.

If Israel is wise it will return to the negotiating table, however due to the complete absence of trust between the parties, this is unlikely. A peaceful disengagement and a successful Palestinian take over of Gaza will help to build trust between the sides. Perhaps not enough trust to return to permanent status negotiations, but enough to bring about a second, but coordinated disengagement.

It is quite clear that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians –perceive the first disengagement as a reward of violence and that Hamas is presenting itself to the public as the party that secured the Israeli evacuation. This was a real lost opportunity by Israel to strengthen the leadership of Abu Mazen. Had Sharon announced the disengagement after meeting with Abu Mazen, it would be perceived as a victory for moderation and negotiations.

A second disengagement must be done in coordination with Abu Mazen directly in the picture. If not, a second disengagement could lead to a third intifada. The next disengagement will likely be from all of the settlements east of the Israeli separation barrier – walls and fences. Here we are speaking about a minimum of 80,000 settlers in some 60 settlements. This falls short of what Palestinians want and it will be a clear attempt by Israeli to cement the separation barriers as a permanent border. Nonetheless, the second disengagement should be embraced by the Palestinians and supported in any way possible. The Israeli taboo on removing settlements has been broken by the first disengagement and the Palestinians must encourage the Israelis to continue dismantling more and more settlements.

The best chances for moving forward and for ensuring additional further Israeli withdrawals and disengagements is for the Palestinians to claim statehood and sovereignty and to behave like a state. As a responsible member of the international community, backed by UN Membership, Palestine will be free to enter into international treaties and conventions. Palestine will be free to call upon the United Nations to dispatch United Nations peace keepers to its borders in order to prevent an Israeli incursion into its territory. Palestine can be a free agent and can work on behalf of all of its citizens and territories, even if it still does not have full control over all of the areas of the State. This is all completely feasible and possible if Palestine behaves like a responsible State. This means that Palestine must enforce law and order. It means that there cannot be any militia or unauthorized weapons being used by groups of citizens. It means that stopping the armed struggle or the armed resistance becomes a Palestinian imperative and a supreme matter of Palestinian national strategic interests.

The surest way to advance the process of creating the Palestinian State in all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem is for the State of Palestine to exist as a state dedicated to providing security, prosperity and peace for its own citizens. Even if the State of Palestine is not created as part of a negotiated process, a process of coordinated unilateralism is completely possible. In fact, this might be the fastest and surest way to advance the cause of freedom and liberation for Palestine and for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Gershon Baskin is the founder and the Israeli co-director of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information in Jerusalem.