Counterpunch: “An Interview With Tanya Reinhart: The Roadmap to Nowhere”

by Eric Hazan, Counterpunch, October 2nd

Your new book, Roadmap to Nowhere, covers the history of the Israeli occupation of Palestine in the last three years, a period dominated by Ariel Sharon’s leadership. You argue that during this period it became evident that in Israel, decisions are taken by the military, rather than the political echelons. Can you elaborate?

Israeli military and political systems have always been closely intertwined, with generals moving from the army straight to the government, but the army’s political status was further solidified during Sharon’s ascendancy. Senior military officers brief the press (they capture at least half of the news space in the Israeli media), and brief and shape the views of foreign diplomats; they go abroad on diplomatic missions, outline political plans for the government, and express their political views on any occasion.

In contrast to the military stability, the Israeli political system is in a gradual process of crumbling. In a World Bank report of April 2005, Israel is found one of the most corrupt and least efficient in the Western world, second only to Italy in the government corruption index, and lowest in the index of political stability. Sharon personally was associated, together with his sons, with severe bribery charges, that have never reached the court. The new party that Sharon founded, Kadima, and which now heads the government, with Olmert as Sharon’s successor, is a hierarchical agglomeration of individuals with no party institutions or local branches. Its guidelines, published in November 22 2005, enable its leader to bypass all standard democratic processes and appoint the list of the party’s candidates to the parliament without voting or approval of any party body.

The Labor party has not been able to offer an alternative. In the last two Israeli elections, Labor elected dovish candidates for prime ministry–Amram Mitzna in 2003, and Amir Peretz in 2006. Both were initially received with enormous enthusiasm, but were immediately silenced by their party and campaign advisors and by self imposed censorship, aiming to situate themselves “at the center of the political map”. Soon, their program became indistinguishable from that of Sharon. Peretz even declared that on “foreign and security” matters he will do exactly as Sharon (but he will also bring a social change). Thus these candidates helped convince the Israeli voters that Sharon’s way is the right way. In the last years, there has never been a substantial left-wing opposition to the rule of Sharon and the generals, since after the elections, Labor would always join the government, providing the dovish image that the generals need for international show.

With the collapse of the political system, the army remains the body that shapes and executes Israel’s policies. During the recent Israeli attack on Lebanon (not covered in the book), it became common knowledge in Israel that the military is leading the government, with Peretz, now Defense minister, often appearing on tv looking like a puppet operated by the generals surrounding him.

Sharon is widely viewed in Israeli and Western discourse as a leader who has undergone a transformation from a philosophy of eternal war to moderation and concession. This is not quite the picture that emerges from your book.

One of the questions in the book is how it happened that Sharon, the most brutal, cynical, racist and manipulative leader Israel has ever had, ended his political career as a legendary peace hero? The answer, I argue, is that Sharon has never changed. Rather, the birth of the Sharon myth reflects the present omnipotence of the propaganda system in manufacturing consciousness.

During his four years in office, Sharon stalled any chance of negotiations with the Palestinians. In 2003 – the road map period -the Palestinians accepted the plan and declared a cease fire, but while the Western world was celebrating the new era of peace, the Israeli army, under Sharon, intensified its policy of assassinations, maintained the daily harassment of the occupied Palestinians, and eventually declared an all-out-war on Hamas, killing all its first rank of military and political leaders. Later, as the Western world was holding its breath again, in a year and a half of waiting for the planned Gaza pullout, Sharon did everything possible to fail the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, who was elected in January 2005. Sharon declared that Abbas is not a suitable partner (because he does not fight terror) and turned down all his offers of renewed negotiations.

The daily reality of the Palestinians in the occupied territories was never as grim as in the period of Sharon. In the West Bank, Sharon started a massive project of ethnic cleansing in the areas bordering with Israel. His wall project robs the land of the Palestinian villages in these areas, imprisons whole towns, and leaves their residents with no means of sustenance. If the project continues, many of the 400.000 Palestinians affected by it will have to leave and seek their livelihood in the outskirts of cities in the center of the West Bank, as happened already in northern West Bank town of Qalqilia. The Israeli settlements were evacuated from the Gaza Strip, but the Strip remains a big prison, completely sealed from the outside world, nearing starvation and terrorized from land, sea and air by the Israeli army.

Sharon’s legacy, as it unfolds in the period covered in this book, is eternal war, not just with the Palestinians, but with what the Israeli army views as their potential network of support, be it Lebanon now, or Iran and Syria tomorrow. At the same time, what Sharon’s legacy has brought to perfection is that war can be always marketed as the tireless pursuit of peace. Sharon proved that Israel can imprison the Palestinians, bombard them from the air, steal their land in the West Bank, stall any chance for peace, and still be hailed by the Western world as the peaceful side in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Did the Road Map plan of 2003, with which your book opens, offer any real prospect for peace?

To answer this question, it is necessary first to refresh our memory regarding what the conflict is about. From Israeli discourse one might get the impression that it is about Israel’s right to exist. On this view, the Palestinians are trying to undermine the mere existence of the state of Israel with the demand to allow their refugees to return, and they are trying to achieve that with terror. It seems that it has been forgotten that in practice this is a simple and classical conflict over Palestinian land and resources (water) that Israel has been occupying since 1967. The Road Map document as well manifests complete absence of any territorial dimension. In the final, third phase, of the plan the occupation should end. But the plan’s document doesn’t put any demands on Israel at this third phase. Most Israelis understand that there is no way to end the occupation and the conflict without the Israeli army leaving the territories and the dismantlement of settlements. But these basic concepts are not even hinted at in the document, which only mentions freezing settlements expansion and dismantling new outposts, already at the first phase of the plan.

Nevertheless, the road map plan is substantial and important because of what it determines should happen in its first phase. This phase repeats the cease-fire plan proposed by then CIA head George Tenet, in June 2001. The essence of this phase is that to restore calm, a cease-fire should be declared, to which both sides should have to contribute. The Palestinians should cease all terror and armed activity, and Israel should pull its forces back to the positions they held before the Palestinian uprising, in September 2000. This is a substantial demand of Israel, because in September 2000, there were large areas of the West Bank that were under Palestinian autonomous control. Implementing the demand to restore the conditions that existed then, should mean also lifting the many road blocks and army posts that Israel has placed in these areas since that time.

There is no doubt that fulfilment of this demand would contribute greatly to establishing some calm, and creating, at least, conditions for negotiations. But, as I mentioned, Israel refused to accept even that much, and stalled the road map in the same way that it had stalled the Tenet plan before.

A central event that you cover in the book is the Gaza pullout and the evacuation of the Gaza settlements. But your analysis of what went on behind the scenes of the pullout is quite different than the way it was perceived even in critical circles.

A prevailing view in critical circles is that Sharon decided to evacuate the Gaza settlements because maintaining them was too costly, and he preferred to focus efforts on his central goal of keeping the West Bank and expanding its settlements. There is no doubt that Sharon openly used the disengagement plan to expand and strengthen Israel’s grip of the West Bank. But I argue that there is no evidence that he decided to give Gaza up because keeping it proved too costly.

Of course, the occupation of Gaza has always been costly, and even from the perspective of the most committed Israeli expansionists, Israel does not need this piece of land, one of the most densely populated in the world, and lacking any natural resources. The problem is that one cannot let Gaza free, if one wants to keep the West Bank. A third of the occupied Palestinians live in the Gaza strip. If they are given freedom, they would become the center of Palestinian struggle for liberation, with free access to the Western and Arab world. To control the West Bank, Israel had to stick to Gaza. From this perspective, the previous model of occupation was the optimal choice. The Strip was controlled from the inside by the army, and the settlements provided the support system for the army, and the moral justification for the soldiers’ brutal job of occupation. It makes their presence there a mission of protecting the homeland. Control from the outside may be cheaper, but in the long run, it has no guarantee of success.

Furthermore, since the Oslo years, the settlements were conceived both locally and internationally as a tragic problem that, despite Israel’s good intentions to end the occupation, cannot be solved. This useful myth was broken with the evacuation of the Gaza settlements, which showed how easy it is, in fact, to evacuate settlements, and how big the support is in Israeli society for doing that.

I argue that Sharon did not evacuate the Gaza settlements out of his own will, but rather, that he was forced to do so. Sharon cooked up his disengagement plan as a means to gain time, at the peak of international pressure that followed Israel’s sabotaging of the road map and its construction of the West Bank wall. Even then, there are some indications that he was looking for ways to sneak out of this commitment, as he did with all his commitments before. But this time he was forced to actually carry it out by the Bush administration. Though it was kept fully behind the scenes, the pressure was quite massive, including military sanctions. The official pretext for the sanctions was Israel’s arm sale to China, but in previous occasions, the crisis was over as soon as Israel agreed to cancel the deal. This time, the sanctions were unprecedented, and lasted until the signing of the crossing agreement in November 2005.

But currently there is no sign of any U.S. pressure on Israel?

Yes, U.S. pressure ended right with the evacuation of the settlements, and Israel was given a free hand to violate all the agreements signed ceremonially in November 2005, under the supervision of Condoleezza Rice. Since then, the U.S. has given full backing to Israel, as it turned the Gaza strip into an open-air prison, and began to starve and bombard the besieged Palestinians. We should note that at no stage, did Sharon take a commitment to actually give up the full Israeli control of the Gaza strip. From its outset, the disengagement plan, as published in Israeli media in April 16, 2004 determined that Israel would maintain full military control of the strip from the outside, as before the pullout.

From the U.S. perspective, its goal was achieved with the evacuation of the settlements. As long as international calm is maintained, Palestinian suffering plays no role in US calculations. To maintain the Iraq occupation, while preparing its next steps in the “war on terror”, It was important for the U.S. to appease the world’s sentiment that something should be done to end the Israeli occupation. This goal was achieved for the time being. The Western world, or at least its leaders and media, were euphoric with the new turn in the Middle East. The dominant world-view in the Western media is still that Israel has done its part, and now it is the Palestinians’ turn to show their peaceful intentions. With the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections, this view has even strengthened. Israel’s eternal claim that it has no partner for peace is now having a renewed impact. Those who have accepted for years Israel’s claim that Arafat was not a partner, and then that Abbas was not, are certainly willing to hear also that Hamas is not.

Since the end of 2005, the Bush administration has seemed determined to move its planned “Iranian campaign” into high gear, so Israel’s stocks have been rising again. In its concerted campaign to prevent international recognition of the new Hamas administration, and to impose tough sanctions on the Palestinians, Israel has been exploiting the Islamophobic atmosphere that resurfaced in the US. Israeli security officials flooded the West with reports on the dangers of Hamas’ future ties with Iran and Syria, painting a disturbing picture of a global fundamentalist Islamic threat. The conditions were ripe for such propaganda. On February 3, the Pentagon released its 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), where it lays out its vision for what it describes as a long war: “Currently, Iraq and Afghanistan are crucial battlegrounds, but the struggle extends far beyond their borders. With its allies and partners, the United States must be prepared to wage this war in many locations simultaneously and for some years to come”.

With the drums of the long war banging, Israel’s line on Hamas has been well received. The US administration urged European and Arab countries to freeze direct aid to the Palestinian Authority,and on February 15, the U.S. congress started moves in the same direction. Israeli security officials had been involved for quite some time before in urging the U.S. Administration to increase its operations in Iran, including covert acts of regime change – efforts that were yielding their fruits in 2006. As was disclosed by Seymour Hersh and others, during Israel’s recent war on Lebanon, the U.S. administration has viewed this as preparation, and a “test” for the option of an attack on Iran.

What has been the role of the Pro-Israel lobby in shaping U.S. policies?

Interestingly, in 2005, during the whole period of U.S. heavy pressure on Israel, AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and other lobby groups were completely silent. As I detail in the book, this compliance was helped by the investigation, and later the indictment of two AIPAC officials – its policy director, Steven Rosen, and Iran specialist Keith Weissman. It transpired that the powerful Pro-Israel lobby could be silenced easily, if the White House so desired. This confirms what Chomsky and others have been arguing for years – that the Pro-Israel lobbies are powerful only as long as their pressure is in line with U.S. policies.

But the renewed wave of Islamophobia has also bolstered AIPAC’s newfound self-confidence. Its annual policy conference in March 2006 was held in an atmosphere of neocon celebration, with star appearance of several of the most hard-line administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton. The Jewish newspaper Forward noted at the time that AIPAC “appears to be out of step with the American Jewish community on Iraq. 70% of American Jews oppose the Iraq war, according to a poll commission by the American Jewish Committee at the end of 2005.” But regardless of the opinions of the Jewish community they are supposed to represent, the leaders of the Pro-Israel lobby “are optimistic that, paradoxically, the drop in Bush’s approval ratings in American public opinion will force him to adopt the hard line advocated by AIPAC and Israel”.

Despite the grim events described in the book, the overall feeling that comes through is that of hope. Why?

I argue that the reason that the U.S. exerted even limited pressure on Israel, for the first time in recent history, was because at that moment in history it was no longer possible to ignore world discontent over its policy of blind support of Israel. This shows that persistent struggle can have an effect, and can lead governments to act. Such struggle begins with the Palestinian people, who have withstood years of brutal oppression, and who, through their spirit of zumud -sticking to their land- and daily endurance, organizing and resistance, have managed to keep the Palestinian cause alive, something that not all oppressed nations have managed to do. It continues with international struggle–solidarity movements that send their people to the occupied territories and stand in vigils at home, professors signing boycott petitions, subjecting themselves to daily harassment, a few courageous journalists that insist on covering the truth, against the pressure of acquiescent media and pro-Israel lobbies. Often this struggle for justice seems futile. Nevertheless, it has penetrated global consciousness. It is this collective consciousness that eventually forced the U.S. to pressure Israel into some, albeit limited, concessions. The Palestinian cause can be silenced for a while, as is happening now, but it will resurface.

You note that since 2003, a new form of struggle has been formed along the route of the West Bank wall?

Largely unreported, there is a growing non-violent popular struggle aimed at stopping, or at least slowing down, Israel’s massive work of destruction that, once completed, will disconnect 400,000 Palestinians from their land and means of sustenance. In the Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe) of 1948, 730,000 Palestinians were driven out of their villages. But rather than waiting for the history books to tell the story of the second Palestinian Nakba, the Palestinians along the wall are struggling to save their land. Armed only with the marvelous spirit of people who have held to their land one generation after the other, they stand in front of one of the most brutal military machines of the world. An amazing development of the last three years is that Israelis have joined the Palestinian struggle. For the first time in the history of the occupation, we are witnessing joint Israeli-Palestinian struggle.

For almost two years now, the center of struggle has been the village Bil’in, in the center of the West Bank, whose lands are being transferred to the Israeli settlement of upper Modi’in. Every Friday there is a central demonstration that gathers the whole village as well as Israelis and internationals. The army has used brutal force to try to stop the protest, but the demonstrations continue. Along with Israel of the army and the settlers, a new Israel-Palestine is forming along the route of the wall. In the last chapter of the book I survey in detail the development of this joint struggle–the history of the people, which emerged along the history of the powerful.

Tanya Reinhart is a Professor of Linguistics at Tel Aviv University and the author of Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948 and The Roadmap to Nowhere. She can be reached through her website: http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart

Just Another Day at Huwarra Checkpoint: Journalist Beaten, 10 Men Detained

by ISM Nablus, October 1st

Huwarra checkpoint, just South of Nablus, is notorious for its volatile atmosphere and violent soldiers. Today was an example in point. Hundreds of women and men were forced into a large holding pen, with small children being crushed against the turnstiles separating the soldiers from the Palestinians waiting in line. Young and old suffered from the heat, perspiring and holding onto one another as not to faint or fall. Young infants and fragile groceries were carried on shoulders and heads so as to escape injury as the soldiers shouted and waved their weapons in the faces of people at the back of the line to make them step forward.

Ramadan is an exertion in itself, yet one which the pious believe that Allah will repay in plenty in the afterlife. What should be a humbling and beautiful display of piety and steadfastness is transformed and sullied by aggressive soldiers intent on, in the words of one commander, “torturing the people as much as possible until they break the fast.” To this soldier’s contentment and flying in the face of the spirit of this the ‘prohibitive month,’ Palestinians waiting in line were reduced to elbowing their way forward in line and arguing heatedly about who was to go first.

At one point, a well-known journalist, Jafar, from the nearby village of Salim, approached one of the higher-ranking soldiers in order to inquire whether he could take pictures of the chaos unfurling in front of him. Yet before he even had time to open his mouth, the soldier punched him in the face and beat his chest with his rifle. As the journalist backed away, the soldier followed and continued kicking his shins and thighs with his heavy boots. Bleeding from his mouth and limping badly due to pain in his right leg, the journalist demanded to file a report on the incident while waiting for an ambulance to arrive.

The attack was witnessed by a human rights worker and reported to a senior officer who arrived at the scene shortly afterwards. After threatening to arrest the journalist, the officer finally ceded to his demands and documented all injuries incurred, promising to let the journalist know what consequences this completely unprovoked attack would have for the soldier in question.

Just as the line of people started moving more smoothly through the checkpoint, four young men requested that human rights workers go with them through the olive groves around Huwarra checkpoint. They wanted to make sure that three of their friends, who had been intercepted by Israeli military while trying to make their way home around the checkpoint, and thus avoid the several hours long wait, were not being beaten or otherwise maltreated. While walking across a field between Rujeeb and Awarta, two soldiers spotted the group and ordered them to approach. They were extremely aggressive, pushing two Palestinians and holding their guns to the head of one of the men. While assaulting the men physically in front of the human rights observers, the soldiers cursed at the Palestinians, and repeatedly addressed them as “dog.” The group was taken to Awarta checkpoint, where three others were already being made to wait since two hours back.

After half an hour there were in total 10 Palestinian men and 3 international human rights observers detained at Awarta checkpoint. At four o’clock they were told that they would not be allowed to leave until nine o’clock in the evening as “punishment for breaking the law.” When human rights workers inquired as to what punishment the law proscribed for the offense, the soldier responded, “I have the gun, I make the law, and I say they have to be punished for 5 hours.” When asked exactly what law the group was breaching, the soldiers answered that there was a law stipulating that everyone must go through the checkpoint. Upon being asked what they would do if they had to wait six to ten hours every day after having been at university just to go home and eat with their families, they offered nonsensical answers such as that they think that the young men should pass through the checkpoint only in the morning or bring food with them and break the fast on their own in Nablus.

At one point, a plainclothes settler from Britain approached the people being detained pretending to be a police officer and then a soldier, threatening them with arrest. The soldiers gave the settler a welcoming hug and then stood chatting, smoking and snacking on pomegranate seed right in front of the fasting Palestinians without any regard to their feelings. The settler stood menacingly over the seated detainees and joined the soldier in his questioning and taunting. In effect, the settler was allowed to ‘play soldier,’ with the lives of the Palestinians in detention.

After an hour, the group was allowed to return to Huwarra where their IDs were given back to them and they were allowed to go home. Before leaving, one of the men, a university student from Beita, told the human rights workers that their presence had prevented “physical punishment today” but emphasized that this is a daily occurrence and that he will continue to walk around the checkpoint. “Why not take the chance? I have to wait at the checkpoint anyway so I might as well wait outside in the fresh air,” he said and winked.

Olive Harvest Campaign 2006 Gets Underway!

1. Beit Furik Demonstrate Against Closures
2. Israeli Settlers Harrass Palestinians, Soldiers Detain Human Rights Worker
3. Farmer Picks Grapes While Harrassed by Armed Israeli Colonist Militia
4. Non-violent Resistance in Bil’in Works
5. Illegal Barriers in Hebron Region Destroyed
6. Palestinian and International Activists Remove Roadblock
7. Harry Potter and the Spell of Transportation
8. Bil’in Announces Plans to Build Hotel on Israeli Occupied Village Land
9. Olive Harvest Campaign 2006 Gets Underway!
10. Roadblock Removed in Al-Jab’a, Demonstrators Attacked

1. Beit Furik Demonstrate Against Closures

by ISM Nablus, September 9th

This morning a group of university students and other residents of Beit Furik joined in a non-violent demonstration against the early closure of the checkpoint separating them from Nablus city center. About 50 Palestinian and international protestors marched across a settler road toward the checkpoint holding placards, demanding an end to the Palestinian people’s misery and asking to speak to the highest commanding officer at the site.

A couple of students tried to explain to the soldiers that it is impossible for them to seriously pursue their studies when they are constantly having to fit their schedule around the random regulations of the checkpoint. Beit Furik checkpoint currently closes at 6:30 in the evening, and the protestors’ primary demand was therefore that the checkpoint should be kept open until later in the evening, providing time for students and workers to return home from Nablus.

The soldiers would not listen to the demands and kept ordering the demonstration to back away from the checkpoint. The protestors then hung their placards from the tin roof of the pen where men and women are usually made to wait for their turn to have their IDs and persons inspected before being allowed to go about their day. These messages were ripped down, torn and crumpled up by the annoyed soldiers as the demonstration dispersed.

The village of Beit Furik is strangled by checkpoints, settler-only roads and settlements. In order for the villagers to cross into Salem village, the neighboring town, they have to cross through a checkpoint. When this checkpoint is closed, and the local roads blocked, the residents of Beit Furik are forced to travel in a wide arch in the opposite direction to their destination. Travelling through nine villages on a rocky dirt-track that is nearly impossible to navigate by car in the winter months, it might take up to five hours for villagers to reach Nablus. There is also a high risk of being stopped by soldiers and arrested or turned back.

These restrictions of movement are devastating for Beit Furik’s social, economical and political situation. Yet the residents of Beit Furik are defiant and view today’s demonstration as the first of many similar acts of protest. They welcome all expressions of support and solidarity for their struggle for freedom of movement.

For photos see https://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/09/09/beit-furik-demo/

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

2. Israeli Settlers Harrass Palestinians, Soldiers Detain Human Rights Worker

by Tel Rumeida Project and ISM Hebron, September 9th

Around 2pm today, while sitting on the top of the hill in Tel Rumeida, Hebron, soldiers ordered Palestinian children and Human Rights Workers (HRWs) to stop playing football in the street. The HRW asked the soldier what the problem was, and he replied, “You’re bothering me. Stop playing football here.” The HRW asked the soldier if it was illegal to play football in the street, and the soldier said, “No, it’s not illegal, but you’re bothering me. Stop playing football here. Thank you.” The Palestinian children and HRWs continued to play football for about two more minutes, then sat back down. Approximately ten minutes later, HRWs noticed two Israeli settler children looking over the fence and into the yard of a Palestinian home. Israeli settlers have been tearing down and breaking grape vines from this house over the past week, as well as stealing the grapes. One HRW walked towards the direction of the children, and they left. The HRW then stepped inside the Palestinian shoe shop nearby to say hello and see how things were going.

At this point, six settler boys around the age of 16 came down the hill. The international stood in the doorway, continuing her conversation. One settler boy, who approached this HRW the day before and called her a ‘bitch’ in Hebrew, aggressively approached the door of the shop and tried to enter. The HRW blocked his way with her body and told him, “You are not welcome in this shop. This is a private business.” The settler began yelling at the HRW in Hebrew. The HRW continued to block the door. The remaining settler boys surrounded the other HRW and began yelling at him in Hebrew. They then started to lightly whip the HRW with their tzitzit (the tassles that religious Jews wear). Two soldiers posted nearby approached and told the HRW to leave and quit making problems. The settler boys then proceeded to stand in a circle in the middle of the road and jump up and down, holding hands, singing a song in Hebrew very loudly. The soldier who had told the Palestinians and HRWs not to play football then told the HRWs that it would be better if we weren’t sitting outside causing problems and bothering the settlers on Shabbat. The soldier asked us what we were doing there and asked why we couldn’t go somewhere else. The HRWs ended the conversation at this point.

Approximately ten minutes later, eight soldiers came running down the hill. The last soldier in the contingent stopped at the gate of a house and kicked a small child who appeared to be about eight years old. The HRWs yelled at the soldier, but he ignored the HRWs and continued down the hill. He was wearing a red kippa and holding his helmet in his hand. One HRW approached a commander and told him about the soldier. She was able to point out the soldier; the commander called the soldier over to him. As the commander walked back past the HRWs, he told them, “You should file a report. What he did was bad.”

HRWs then received a phone call from HRWs on Shuhada Street saying they had just been attacked by the settlers. These were the same settlers in the incident on the top of the hill. A separate report will follow with the details of this incident.

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

At approximately 3:30pm, three HRWs were sitting on Shuhada Street. Settler children were milling about the soldier’s post next to Beit Hadassa Settlement. The HRWs noticed three settler boys walking down Shuhada Street towards the settlement, seemingly prepared for violence. As the boys walked past the HRWs, they focused their attention on the two women in the group. The settler boys spit on the HRWs and cursed them in Hebrew. The HRWs then stood up and told the settler boys to leave. One boy had a short stick twice as thick as a broom handle. He threatened one HRW with the stick, but did not hit her. The HRWs yelled at the settler boys to leave and called for the soldier. The soldier eventually came out of his post and smiled gently at the boys. They eventually left, but not without threatening one HRW with the stick again and throwing a few rocks.

About ten minutes later, a Palestinian woman coming from the Qurtuba girls school stairs said that settler boys had thrown rocks at her. One HRW went towards the stairs and saw about 15 kids about the age of 8-10 sitting on the path to the school, destroying it. The HRW asked the soldier to help stop the kids, but he said that it wasn’t his job; he then went back into his post. The Palestinian woman who had come from the path ten minutes before came back; HRWs immediately offered to accompany her back on the path. She was extremely relieved that we said we would go with her. HRWs walked her past the settlers without incident and then went back to Shuhada Street. This went on with three more Palestinians, all without major incident. HRWs had called the police in the meantime to report the damage to the path. The police came and began yelling at the children. HRWs continued to accompany Palestinians on the path. Each time, the settler kids were more aggressive towards the Palestinians and HRWs, spitting on them and blocking their path. The last time HRWs walked a Palestinian on the path, settler girls about the age of 12 forcefully blocked the path and stopped the HRWs from passing. HRWs non-violently pushed their way through the group of settler kids. Anat Cohen, a settler woman well-known for being aggressive towards Palestinians and HRWs, blocked the second HRW. Anat Cohen said over and over again, “Go to Aushwitz! Go to Aushwitz you Nazi!” The HRW did not reply.

Fifteen minutes later, the border police and regular police approached the HRWs sitting on Shuhada Street. They filmed one female HRW, then surrounded her and demanded that she hand over her passport. The HRW had been travelling earlier in the day and had left her passport in the house. The police officer ordered another HRW to get the passport from the house. The police arrested the first HRW in the meantime. The HRW was held at Kiryat Arba Police Station for four hours then released without charges.

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

3. Farmer Picks Grapes While Harrassed by Armed Israeli Colonist Militia

by the Palestine Solidarity Project, September 10th

Abu Ayash and his family have owned and tended their land for around 100 years but are now facing increasing violence from the inhabitants of the nearby and ever expanding Israeli settlement Karme Zur. On Sunday, September 10, activists with the Palestine Solidarity Project (PSP) joined the farmer to defy the Israeli DCO (District Co-ordination Office – essential the Israeli army’s administrative wing in the West Bank), and make the harvest under the watchful eye of armed settler ’security’ and Israeli army.

The family owns 3 dunums of land right next to Karme Zur, some of the grapevines reaching out onto the settler road separating the Palestinian land from the green lawns of the settlement. When the family tries to pick the grapes there, armed settlers harass and scare them away, threatening to shoot them if they return. The settlers demand that the family contact the DCO to gain permission to harvest, something that the family refuses to do since it is their land to visit as they please.

Since the family is largely unable to access this land, it is left unguarded for long periods of time. The settlers take advantage of this by picking the grapes for themselves or destroying the trees. In the past, they have used tractors to mow down trees, radically decreasing the harvest and the family’s income. For the past year and a half, the Abu Ayash family has been accompanied by international human rights workers when tending their land. This has substantially lessened the degree of harassment, even though settlers still try to interfere with their work, threatening family members and international activists alike.

On Sunday the 10th of September, volunteers from Palestine Solidarity Project (PSP) accompanied members of the Abu Ayash family to the 3 dunums bordering the settlement. Together, they picked about 1 ton, or 100 boxes, full of grapes which, in financial terms, means a significant income of 800-900 shekles for the family. Armed settler militia approached the harvesters with a jeering “Oh, there you are! We have been waiting for you!” and immediately took their positions along the road separating the land from the settler houses. Protesting whenever someone would climb onto the stone wall to reach for the bunches of grapes growing on the verge of the road, the settlers patrolled the area throughout the four hours the family were on the land. At one point, a military jeep pulled up and seemingly relieved the settler guards of their watch. As we were about to leave, a group of settler children approached to make fun of and spit at the activists.

In the debate concerning the Israeli occupation of Palestine, there is always a lot of talk about the security fears of colonist settlers and Israelis in general. It was, therefore, interesting to see how a young unarmed colonist mother with an infant strapped to her chest and a toddler hanging onto her left hand, calmly walked by the land where we were picking grapes, even stopping to get a closer look at us. This was before the armed settler militia had even arrived. Having seen this, and countless other examples of feigned security concerns, it is difficult to take seriously the proclaimed fear of attack from Palestinians – continuously used to justify the most barbarous policies and a continuation of the occupation.

Seventy dunums of farm land have already been completely confiscated by Karmi Zur colony, and the papers proving ownership have proven worthless in contesting the theft. In addition to the 70 dunums now within the settlement, the family owns an additional 5 dunums of land wedged in between the two settlements of Gush Etzion and Efrat. There are two ways of getting to this land – one a 10 minute drive on a settler-only road, and one a 60 minute journey by dirt-track over the hills. If Israeli police stop Palestinians traveling on the settler-only road they are charged a fine of 1,000 NIS. Both the fine and the time it takes to get to the land on the dirt-track are prohibitive factors that mean that the family is unable to tend their land as needed.

This year’s grape-harvest is now over. In a couple of months, the family will need to cut the vines and plow the earth. In the face of settler violence and military complicity, they will have to continue coordinating their plans with PSP in order to work on their own land. This is PSP’s second direct action in 10 days. PSP is a non-violent Palestinian-led movement based in Beit Ommar welcoming international participation and support. While the website is under construction, PSP can be reached at palestine_project@yahoo.com

For photos visit https://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/09/13/beit-ommar-10-09/

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

4. Non-violent Resistance in Bil’in Works

by ISM media volunteers, September 15th

Today, as every in Friday for the last year and 7 months, the villagers of Bil’in marched from the mosque to the Wall. Joined by international and Israeli activists, the marchers were confronted on the edge of the village with baton and shield wielding Occupation forces who turned these weapons against the peaceful protesters. An Israeli activist was hit in the face with a riot shield and suffered severe bleeding. Despite the beatings being meted out the villagers sang and chanted resistance slogans.

As the protesters were being forced back into the village they sat down on the road to non-violently resist the Occupation invading the village. In contrast to previous anti-Wall demonstrations when soldiers brutally dispersed any groups of protesters, this time the soldiers allowed them to sit on the road. The rhythmic beating of a Buddhist monk’s drum rang out over the act of silent resistance and shamed the Occupation forces into contemplating their unwelcome and provocative presence in the village.

For photos see https://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/09/15/bilin-15-09/

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

5. Illegal Barriers in Hebron Region Destroyed

by Palestine Solidarity Project, September 15th

On September 15, 2006, Palestinian and international activists removed large sections of a razor wire barrier erected on Palestinian land in the Al-Khalil (Hebron) region, and designed to isolate and bisect a village.

The fence was repeatedly cut, metal stakes removed, and the razor wire ripped to be rendered unusable. The activists worked in teams, sabotaging the fence in many strategic areas. By the end of the action, the activists had destroyed large tracts of the barrier, and created more than six entry and exit points in the fence. Each entry/exit point created spanned more than seven meters. Having accomplished their goal of opening the crossings, the activists returned safely without being observed by Occupation forces.

On September 17, 2006, for the third time in approximately two weeks, Palestinian and international activists carried out a successful direct action to remove illegal fence and razor wire barriers in the Al-Khalil region. The activists were able to open at least six entry and exit points in the razor wire barrier. The section of the barrier that was targeted was very near to an Occupation checkpoint, and the activists were able to complete their work prior to spotting soldiers en route on foot.

These particular barriers, both located in the Al-Khalil region, were chosen because of frequent requests made to PSP by members of the communities affected. The existence of these illegal structures restricts the movement of the Palestinian people and redraws the West Bank borders in the name of Israeli ’security.’ The military claims that the barrier is necessary to prevent attackers from crossing into Israel. This fence is the preliminary installation of what will soon become part of the Apartheid Wall.

The route of the barrier has annexed some families by placing them on the ‘Israeli’ side of the barrier, isolating their homes from their villages. Many farmers in the villages have similarly had their land annexed; the barrier makes their land inaccessible. Now, with the fences disabled, the Palestinians are able to reach their homes, and farm land more easily. By destroying the fence in several locations, PSP was able to create access points for farmers and other travelers to enter and exit the area. This action was also designed to slow the progress of the Apartheid Wall by delaying the process and making it slower.

This is the third direct action undertaken by PSP in two weeks. PSP is a newly developed, Palestinian-led, non-violent movement to resist the Israeli occupation.

For more information on the Palestine Solidarity Project, please contact palestine_project@yahoo.com or visit the website at:
palestinesolidarityproject.wordpress.com

For photo see https://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/09/21/barriers-hebron/

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

6. Palestinian and International Activists Remove Roadblock

by Palestine Solidarity Project, September 21st

On September 21, 2006, in the village of Al-Jab’a, Palestinian and international activists partially removed an earth mound roadblock that separates the Palestinian village of Al-Jab’a from the Palestinian village of Surif.

In 2002, Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) created the illegal roadblock to prevent the villagers of Surif and the villagers of Al’Jab’a from commuting back and forth by car. The roadblock consists of dirt, large stones, at least five massive boulders, and more than nine 2-5 ton concrete slabs and blocks. Presently, Palestinians seeking to reach their village from the neighboring village are forced to approach the barrier by car, unload their goods and crops over the roadblock, and repack them into a car located on the other side of the barrier. While this restriction is extremely difficult to navigate, there are multiple other problems. The barrier is built at the junction of a Palestinian road and a settler-only road leading towards the Israeli town of Beit Shemesh, and in the opposite direction towards Bethlehem, Hebron or Jerusalem. This road leads towards many colonial settlements, and it is partially for this reason that Palestinians are prevented from crossing it via car.

Not only does the earth mound roadblock prevent Palestinians from traveling within the occupied West Bank, and farmers from transporting their crops from field to market, it also prevents local students from attending secondary school. Daily, students from the village of Jab’a must travel to Surif to study. They must make this long journey by foot because the roadblock prevents buses and service taxis from crossing the settler road to the adjacent village. In Jab’a, the school serves students until around age 11. When the students reach twelve years of age, they must go to the older children’s’ school in Surif. With the road block in place, this simple journey is grueling and slow.

Because of these crimes committed by the Occupation, the villagers of Jab’a and Surif, joined with international activists to demonstrate in front of the road block, on the shoulder of the settler-only road. The demonstrators marched from the village of Al-Jab’a holding signs reading, “I Dream of Freedom for My Children,” “Settlers Create Apartheid,” and “You Steal Freedom.” Upon reaching the roadblock, demonstrators held the signs for the view of passing settler cars, and, others began to remove the roadblock with shovels and their hands. The demonstrators used the shovels to carry away the dirt and used their hands to move the rocks. Using a metal pipe as a lever, the demonstrators were able to remove one concrete slab prior to the arrival of IOF soldiers and border police.

After approximately 45 minutes, IOF border police and soldiers arrived. Within minutes of the arrival of the first armored police jeep, it was joined by two armored military jeeps. In total, two border police and more than eight soldiers took positions to monitor the action. After a few minutes they approached the demonstrators with a statement written in Hebrew and two maps marked in pen, also in Hebrew. They explained that the road, the roadblock and the adjacent villages were “closed military zones,” and that internationals were not allowed to be present. After some questioning, this answer changed, and the activists were told that both Palestinians and internationals were not permitted to be present near the roadblock or the road. The soldiers informed the peaceful crowd that if they did not leave immediately, they would be arrested. After listening to the IOF’s threats, the demonstrators returned to work removing the roadblock. During this exchange with the IOF, several cars carrying colonist settlers stopped to shout insults or to inquire about the situation. Throughout the action, many settlers slowed to read the signs, and to occasionally shout profanities at the non-violent demonstrators.

After partially removing the roadblock, the Palestinian village committee decided to disperse and return to the village and the Palestinians and internationals marched back up to Al-Jab’a. This is the first direct action to be undertaken jointly by the Surif and Al-Jab’a local committees and PSP. In the future, the demonstrators hope to return to the roadblock and further open the road, allowing for the free passage of Palestinians from village to village.

For more information on the Palestine Solidarity Project, please contact palestine_project@yahoo.com or visit the website at: palestinesolidarityproject.wordpress.com

For photos see https://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/09/21/jaba-roadblock-action/

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

7. Harry Potter and the Spell of Transportation

by Alizarin Crimson and Harry Potter, September 22nd

At 6:45 PM on September 22nd, human rights workers (HRWs) in Hebron paid a visit to their neighbors, the Abu Haikals where they were shocked, SHOCKED to find that soldiers had yet again, invaded the home.

HRWs rang the bell of the house and politely asked the soldiers to be let in. After receiving no response, HRWs realized that the soldiers, fearful of HRWs entering, had barricaded themselves in the house using a desk to secure the door from the inside.

What the soldiers did not know was that Harry Potter had paid a visit to Hebron that day and had followed the HRWs to the Abu Haikal house. Using his Spell of Transportation, Harry magically transported* three of the HRWs inside the house where soldiers were shocked, SHOCKED to turn around and find NONE OTHER than Harry Potter and his non-violent army of HRWs filming the soldier’s shenanigans.

HRWs noticed that the IOF soldiers were messing with the families’ computer. When asked what they were searching for, soldiers replied they were looking for weapons or “evidence.”

You may click here to listen to the audio of the following conversation Harry Potter had with the soldiers or read it below:

Harry Potter: I think you should search the settler homes, you will find lots of weapons there…What do you think personally, if you’re getting in this house once a week or three times a month, you know, harassing these people here, giving them a hard time and the settlers instead are walking around with their huge guns, throwing stones at school kids and all that stuff. You feel fine protecting them ? Honestly, I mean.

Soldier 1: No comment…. I’m not protecting them, I’m protecting my country.

HRW 1: From whom are you protecting your country ?

Soldier 2: I’m protecting my country and my conscience is clean”

Harry Potter: Why are you protecting your country HERE?

Soldier 2: Because this is also my country.

Harry Potter: This is the West Bank.

Soldier 2: So what ?

Harry Potter: You think the West Bank is Israel ?

Soldier 2: Who, who are you to tell me what is Israel and what is not ?

Harry Potter: I’m just curious what you think.

Soldier 2: Yes, this is Israel. You can open the Bible, the holy…

The remaining three HRWs stayed outside the home and were able to force the door open just enough to lodge a brick between the door and the frame, creating a hole just big enough to film the soldiers searching through the families’ computer.

After approximately half an hour of searching the computer and not finding any “evidence,” the soldiers got bored and asked the HRWs who had been continually banging on the door to please move so they could leave. Six Israeli soldiers emerged from the home, empty handed and somewhat irritated.

Upon examining their computer, the Abu Haikals discovered that the soldiers had left some graffiti in Hebrew and had deleted some software.

The graffiti reads “the one who dares, wins. Unit Palchod 96″

Feryal Abu Haikal commented, “They haven’t been here in about a month, it was time for them to come again.”

* Everything in this report is completely true except for the way in which HRWs entered the home which will remain classified for “security” reasons.

For photos see https://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/09/23/harry-potter/

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

8. Bil’in Announces Plans to Build Hotel on Israeli Occupied Village Land

September 27th

UPDATE, 27th of September: By now the sign has been practically destroyed by Israeli colonist settlers. The plan to build the hotel is going ahead.

UPDATE, 12.30 am: The villagers of Bil’in have successfully inaugurated their project to build a hotel on their land in the illegal settlement. A sign detailing their plans was erected and the foundation stone laid. No-one was detained or arrested. As of this writing, the sign is still standing.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

This morning at 10 am, residents of Bil’in, the Palestinian village that has become the very symbol of non-violent resistance to the Israeli occupation announced their intention to build a hotel on land belonging to the village, but occupied by Israel. Villagers erected a 5×3 meter sign-post advertising the forthcoming hotel called ‘Falastin’, and intend to submit a planning application to the Israeli Civil Administration which is responsible for civilian matters on occupied Palestinian land.

The village land is behind the illegal apartheid barrier that the Israeli military has enforced on the village. The sign has been erected in the illegal settlement of Matityahu East near to the apartments Bil’in villagers tried to move into in July, and the project was inaugurated with the laying of a foundation stone.

In a similar way to Bil’in villagers’ attempt back in July to legally move into an apartment building in the Israeli settlement, this measure is both symbolic and practical. The intention is genuinely to build a hotel on the land. At the same time, the action is being undertaken to highlight the apartheid nature of the Israeli legal system. The Israeli Supreme Court issued an injunction forbidding the occupation of apartments in the Matityahu East settlement as this land was stolen from Bil’in through fraudulent land purchases – the affidavit affirming the transfer of ownership was signed by an attorney representing the settlers, instead of by the head of Bil’in, as is required. However, Jewish settlers have been moving into apartments in Matityahu East in defiance of the Supreme Court and with the complicity of the police and military.

In stark contrast to this treatment of settlers, during the attempted move-in in July, after the Bil’in arrvived in the empty apartments in Matityahu East, the military declared the area a closed military zone and Border Police forcibly evicted the families and removed them to the other side of the apartheid wall.

In July the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the construction company responsible for the expansion of the illegal settlement to demolish two partial structures, restore some of the land to its previous pre-colonial agricultural state and build an access road for Bil’in villagers. The company demolished the structures last month in order to boost their chances of gaining retrospective permission for the other apartments built illegally, but no attempt has yet been made to fulfill the other parts of the court’s decision.

for photos see https://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/09/25/bilin-hotel/

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

9. Olive Harvest Campaign 2006 Gets Underway!

by ISM Nablus, September 29th

The olive harvest of 2006 in Nablus has officially begun! Although not an ideal starting-date, an olive farmer from the Palestinian village of Azmut and his family who own 150 dunums of land partitioned by an Apartheid settler-only road, decided to start harvesting a few days ago. They fear that the Israeli colonists of nearby Elon Moreh will otherwise steal the olives from the trees closest to them.

This is an annual occurrence that further decreases the family’s harvest, already decimated by the limited amount of harvest-time permitted by the DCO (District Coordination Office – the civil administration wing of the Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank). The colonists generally send one or two young girls to pick the olives, making it extremely difficult for the landowner to protest as anything he might say or do to the girls would be blown out of proportion and used against him by the colonists and their allies in the Israeli military and police forces. Thus, he has remained silent so far.

Previous olive harvests in the Nablus region have also been characterised by a substantial degree of violence on the part of both Israeli colonists and soldiers. In this village in 2004, two Palestinian olive pickers were shot by colonists, killing one. Israeli gunmen have without fail turned up to chase the family off their land and the Israeli army’s sole contribution has been to advise the farmer not to return as “the settlers are crazy and they will kill you”. Apart from physical violence, Israeli colonists also cut down about 300 trees belonging to this family in 2000, and burnt an additional area of land in 2004.

This year the family decided to brave the hot sun in the middle of Ramadan to tend to their fields, without DCO permission and armed only with the deed to their land. On Tuesday 26th September 2006, the elderly farmer, his wife, five of his daughters and nieces, and four international observers picked olives from trees adjacent to the Apartheid settler bypass road. These trees had not been picked by their rightful Palestinian owners for more than 10 years due to colonist theft and constant threats.

The first day progressed smoothly, with no interruptions from colonists or military. The mood was cheerful, almost festive, as branch after branch was picked clean. Certain trees grow only 5 metres away from the settler-only road and each vehicle that passed by momentarily caused conversations to cease and breathing to quicken. Yet the work was soothing and spirits were high despite the heat. When the internationals commented on how meditative picking olives could be, a couple of the women joked about organising working holidays for rich westerners looking for an exclusive getaway. We imagined the brochure – “experience the thrill of a lifetime! Come pick olives in beautiful landscapes. Adrenaline rush guaranteed!”

The promised adrenaline rush was delivered the day after. As we proceeded to pick olives on the other side of the Apartheid road, only 100 meters away from Elon Moreh settlement, two colonist gunmen in a jeep pulled up and got out, carrying their machine guns. They did not approach or shout to us but stood at the top of the hill looking down with binoculars as we worked, talking into their radios and driving back and forth at times. There are cameras set up along the entire breadth of the hillside and so they probably saw us coming on their screens, or were told by someone passing by on the road below us. After about half an hour, five soldiers arrived and told us to stop picking.

After some negotiation, we continued picking and the soldiers retreated further down the hill. After another half hour, a DCO representative drove up and spoke to the farmer. Despite not having gained DCO permission prior to going to his field, the farmer successfully talked the DCO officer into leaving us alone. Before leaving, the officer ordered the soldiers to guard us as we worked, once again emphasising that the colonists of Elon Moreh are violent and not to be trusted. We continued working as the soldiers sat in the shade playing with their mobile phones and muttering something about “Palestinians planting bombs in the groves.” We continued picking until the time of day that we had decided at the outset, packed our harvest onto the donkey and left, light-headed and filthy, yet triumphant. The soldiers followed, slipping and sliding among the rocks with their heavy armour.

The family still has many dunums left to pick but have decided to postpone this until after the end of Ramadan due to the extreme heat. They urge internationals to come with them as they continue harvesting after Eid ul-Fitr (the Muslim festival that marks the end of Ramadan), because “if you were not here today, there would be no talk, only guns and threats. We thank you for coming and hope we will meet again someday under happier circumstances.”

This experience shows the importance of international accompaniment for the Palestinian olive harvest. We urge all internationals seeking to build links of solidarity with the Palestinian people fighting occupation to come to Palestine, come to the fields and help ensure that every last olive is harvested.

For photos see https://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/09/29/olive-start/

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

10. Roadblock Removed in Al-Jab’a, Demonstrators Attacked

by Palestine Solidarity Project, September 29th

Today, in the village of Al-Jab’a, Palestinian villagers, supported by Israeli and international activists successfully removed a large section of an illegal roadblock that had been installed by the Israeli army. The Palestinians were able to achieve their objective: creating a passage wide enough to allow for a service taxi (a mini-bus sized shared taxi: they at as the mainstay of public transport in the West Bank). While work was still going on, Israeli army arrived and assaulted Palestinian, international and Israeli activists.

A group of Palestinians, along with their Israeli and international supporters joined together at the junction between the villages of Al-Jab’a and Surif to remove the earth mound roadblock that prevents cars from passing between the villages – nearly 100 people altogether. The roadblock prevents school children in Al-Jab’a from reaching Surif. It also prevents farmers in Surif and Al’Jab’a from reaching their land via tractor, while similarly preventing the transport of crops from the fields to the market. The roadblock effectively closes the road in two directions, and service taxis are prevented from waiting to pick up travellers. Fed up of these restrictions aimed against the Palestinians, for the second time in eight days, the people assembled to dismantle the obstruction. On September 21, the villagers carried out a similar action and began the work to remove the roadblock.

The demonstrators marched from the village of Al-Jab’a, following Friday prayers, and assembled at the blockade. The Palestinians carried signs reading “I Dream of Freedom for My Children,” “Settlers Create Apartheid” and “You Steal Freedom,” while others carried Palestinian flags. When the demonstrators reached the roadblock, they began removing it with shovels, hoes, picks and their hands. Rocks were passed hand to hand, the rubble that formed the base of the mound was moved by shovel, and others began to dig underneath the two ton concrete block that was to be moved. After the stones and dirt had been partially removed, and the base of the block exposed, ropes and straps were attached to the block, and a large lever was angled underneath to help lift. Using the strength of over thirty people, the block was moved inch by inch. Some demonstrators pushed the block from behind, and others pulled on the ropes. In minutes, the demonstrators were able to roll the block five times, clearing a path for cars, trucks, pedestrians and donkeys. With the block removed, and the rubble cleared, the hole created was nearly 9 feet (3 meters) wide.

By the time the block was moved and the road opened, large contingents of Israeli Occupation Force (IOF) soldiers had assembled. Three military jeeps, one Hummer and one police jeep had been dispatched, as well as more than twenty soldiers and police. They ordered the people to leave, claiming that the entire area was a “closed military zone.” Soon after, the IOF soldiers and police attacked the demonstrators. First the IOF attempted to seize the shovels and picks, but the demonstrators were able to prevent these tools from being taken by passing them from person to person. After this, the IOF soldiers attempted to arrest a Palestinian man. During this attempted arrest, the demonstrators were able to peacefully block the soldiers, and prevent the man from being seized. After two unsuccessful attempts to arrest demonstrators and steal tools, the IOF soldiers attempted to arrest two Israeli solidarity activists. Once again, the demonstrators were able to successfully prevent the arrest of the activist by blocking the IOF soldiers with their bodies.

Following the four unsuccessful attempts to seize demonstrators and equipment, the soldiers entered the clearing leading to Surif and chased an Israeli activist who was returning the tools to their owners. The IOF soldiers assaulted the activist, and quickly international activists with the Palestine Solidarity Project (PSP) intervened. During this encounter, the IOF soldiers repeatedly assaulted international and Israeli activists by choking them, punching them, striking them with the shovels and knocking them onto the ground. While the four soldiers attacked the demonstrators, one shouted in English, “I am going to beat her…I am crazy.” During this attack, four activists were injured. While seemingly departing, one soldier, in his rage destroyed a protest sign held by a Palestinian child.

Having successfully opened the roadblock, and remaining in possession of their tools, the Palestinians, Israelis and internationals decided to return to the village. Though they were totally non-violent throughout the demonstration, and were peacefully dispersing, IOF soldiers attempted to follow the Palestinians into the village, presumably to make arrests. In order to prevent this, international and Israeli activists sat down in front of the Hummer that was leading the caravan of soldiers into the village. This tactic prevented the IOF from entering the village, and the Palestinians returned home.

Less than one hour following the demonstration, an military bulldozer, made by US company Caterpillar was dispatched to rebuild the roadblock. This reaction by Occupation forces was expected. The demonstrators knew that their action would not open the road permanently – it was an act of resistance against the Occupation’s policy of closure and restriction of movement. While the roadblock was open for only one hour, during that time, the demonstrators witnessed several families, individuals and farmers riding donkeys, pass through the opened roadblock.

For photos see https://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/09/30/jaba-roadblock2/

—————————————————–
For more reports, journals and action alerts visit the ISM website at www.palsolidarity.org

Please consider supporting the International Solidarity Movement’s work with a financial contribution. You may donate securely through our website at www.palsolidarity.org/main/donations/

Cook: “Bad Faith and the Destruction of Palestine”

Why Did Israel Blow Up Gaza’s Power Station?

By Jonathan Cook, Counterpunch, September 29, 2006

A mistake too often made by those examining Israel’s behaviour in the occupied territories — or when analysing its treatment of Arabs in general, or interpreting its view of Iran — is to assume that Israel is acting in good faith. Even its most trenchant critics can fall into this trap.

Such a reluctance to attribute bad faith was demonstrated this week by Israel’s foremost human rights group, B’Tselem, when it published a report into the bombing by the Israeli air force of Gaza’s power plant in late June. The horrifying consequences of this act of collective punishment — a war crime, as B’Tselem rightly notes — are clearly laid out in the report.

The group warns that electricity is available to most of Gaza’s 1.4 million inhabitants for a few hours a day, and running water for a similar period. The sewerage system has all but collapsed, with the resulting risk of the spread of dangerous infectious disease.

In their daily lives, Gazans can no longer rely on the basic features of modern existence. Their fridges are as good as useless, threatening outbreaks of food poisoning. The elderly and infirm living in apartments can no longer leave their homes because elevators don’t work, or are unpredictable. Hospitals and doctors’ clinics struggle to offer essential medical services. Small businesses, most of which rely on the power and water supplies, from food shops and laundry services to factories and workshops, are being forced to close.

Rapidly approaching, says B’Tselem, is the moment when Gaza’s economy — already under an internationally backed siege to penalise the Palestinians for democratically electing a Hamas government — will simply expire under the strain.

Unfortunately, however, B’Tselem loses the plot when it comes to explaining why Israel would choose to inflict such terrible punishment on the people of Gaza. Apparently, it was out of a thirst for revenge: the group’s report is even entitled “Act of Vengeance”. Israel, it seems, wanted revenge for the capture a few days earlier of an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, from a border tank position used to fire artillery into Gaza.

The problem with the “revenge” theory is that, however much a rebuke it is, it presupposes a degree of good faith on the part of the vengeance-seeker. You steal my toy in the playground, and I lash out and hit you. I have acted badly — even disproportionately to use a vogue word B’Tselem also adopts — but no one would deny that my emotions were honest. There was no subterfuge or deception in my anger. I incur blame only because I failed to control my impulses. There is even the implication that, though my action was unwarranted, my fury was justified.

But why should we think Israel is acting in good faith, even if in bad temper, in destroying Gaza’s power station? Why should we assume it was a hot-headed over-reaction rather than a coldly calculated deed?

In other words, why believe Israel is simply lashing out when it commits a war crime rather than committing it after careful advance planning? Is it not possible that such war crimes, rather than being spontaneous and random, are actually all pushing in the same direction?

More especially, why should we give Israel the benefit of the doubt when its war crimes contribute, as the bombing of the power station in Gaza surely does, to easily deciphered objectives? Why not think of the bombing instead as one instalment in a long-running and slowly unfolding plan?

The occupation of Gaza did not begin this year, after Hamas was elected, nor did it end with the disengagement a year ago. The occupation is four decades old and still going strong in both the West Bank and Gaza. In that time Israel has followed a consistent policy of subjugating the Palestinian population, imprisoning it inside ever-shrinking ghettos, sealing it off from contact with the outside world, and destroying its chances of ever developing an independent economy.

Since the outbreak six years ago of the second intifada — the Palestinians’ uprising against the occupation — Israel has tightened its system of controls. It has sought to do so through two parallel, reinforcing approaches.

First, it has imposed forms of collective punishment to weaken Palestinian resolve to resist the occupation, and encourage factionalism and civil war. Second, it has “domesticated” suffering inside the ghettos, ensuring each Palestinian finds himself isolated from his neighbours, his concerns reduced to the domestic level: how to receive a house permit, or get past the wall to school or university, or visit a relative illegally imprisoned in Israel, or stop yet more family land being stolen, or reach his olive groves.

The goals of both sets of policies, however, are the same: the erosion of Palestinian society’s cohesiveness, the disruption of efforts at solidarity and resistance, and ultimately the slow drift of Palestinians away from vulnerable rural areas into the relative safety of urban centres — and eventually, as the pressure continues to mount, on into neighbouring Arab states, such as Jordan and Egypt.

Seen in this light, the bombing of the Gaza power station fits neatly into Israel’s long-standing plans for the Palestinians. Vengeance has nothing to do with it.

Another recent, more predictable, example was an email exchange published on the Media Lens forum website involving the BBC’s Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen. Bowen was questioned about why the BBC had failed to report on an important peace initiative begun this summer jointly by a small group of Israeli rabbis and Hamas politicians. A public meeting where the two sides would have unveiled their initiative was foiled when Israel’s Shin Bet secret service, presumably with the approval of the Israeli government, blocked the Hamas MPs from entering Jerusalem.

Bowen, though implicitly critical of Israel’s behaviour, believes the initiative was of only marginal significance. He doubts that the Shin Bet or the government were overly worried by the meeting — in his words, it was seen as no more than a “minor irritant” — because the Israeli peace camp has shown a great reluctance to get involved with the Palestinians since the outbreak of the intifada in 2000. The Israeli government would not want Hamas looking “more respectable”, he admits, but adds that that is because “they believe that it is a terrorist organisation out to kill Jews and to destroy their country”.

In short, the Israeli government cracked down on the initiative because they believed Hamas was not a genuine partner for peace. Again, at least apparently in Bowen’s view, Israel was acting in good faith: when it warns that it cannot talk with Hamas because it is a terrorist organisation, it means what it says.

But what if, for a second, we abandon the assumption of good faith?

Hamas comprises a militant wing, a political wing and a network of welfare charities. Israel chooses to characterise all these activities as terrorist in nature, refusing to discriminate between the group’s different wings. It denies that Hamas could have multiple identities in the same way the Irish Republican Army, which included a political wing called Sinn Fein, clearly did.

Some of Israel’s recent actions might fit with such a simplistic view of Hamas. Israel tried to prevent Hamas from standing in the Palestinian elections, only backing down after the Americans insisted on the group’s participation. Israel now appears to be destroying the Palestinians’ governing institutions, claiming that once in Hamas’ hands they will be used to promote terror.

The Israeli government, it could be argued, acts in these ways because it is genuinely persuaded that even the political wing of Hamas is cover for terrorist activity.

But most other measures suggest that in reality Israel has a different agenda. Since the Palestinian elections six months ago, Israel’s policies towards Hamas have succeeded in achieving one end: the weakening of the group’s moderates, especially the newly elected politicians, and the strengthening of the militants. In the debate inside Hamas about whether to move towards politics, diplomacy and dialogue, or concentrate on military resistance, we can guess which side is currently winning.

The moderates not the militants have been damaged by the isolation of the elected Hamas government, imposed by the international community at Israel’s instigation. The moderates not the militants have been weakened by Israel rounding up and imprisoning the group’s MPs. The moderates not the militants have been harmed by the failure, encouraged by Israel, of Fatah and Hamas politicians to create a national unity government. And the approach of the moderates not the militants has been discredited by Israel’s success in blocking the summer peace initiative between Hamas MPs and the rabbis.

In other words, Israeli policies are encouraging the extremist and militant elements inside Hamas rather the political and moderate ones. So why not assume that is their aim?

Why not assume that rather than wanting a dialogue, a real peace process and an eventual agreement with the Palestinians that might lead to Palestinian statehood, Israel wants an excuse to carry on with its four-decade occupation — even if it has to reinvent it through sleights of hand like the disengagement and convergence plans?

Why not assume that Israel blocked the meeting between the rabbis and the Hamas MPs because it fears that such a dialogue might suggest to Israeli voters and the world that there are strong voices in Hamas prepared to consider an agreement with Israel, and that given a chance their strength and influence might grow?

Why not assume that the Israeli government wanted to disrupt the contacts between Hamas and the rabbis for exactly the same reasons that it has repeatedly used violence to break up joint demonstrations in Palestinian villages like Bilin staged by Israeli and Palestinian peace actvists opposed to the wall that is annexing Palestinian farm land to Israel?

And why, unlike Bowen, not take seriously opinion polls like the one published this week that show 67 per cent of Israelis support negotiations with a Palestinian national unity government (that is, one including Hamas), and that 56 per cent favour talks with a Palestinian government whoever is leading it? Could it be that faced with these kinds of statistics Israel’s leaders are terrified that, if Hamas were given the chance to engage in a peace process, Israeli voters might start putting more pressure on their own government to make meaningful concessions?

In other words, why not consider for a moment that Israel’s stated view of Hamas may be a self-serving charade, that the Israeli government has invested its energies in discrediting Hamas, and before it secular Palestinian leaders, because it has no interest in peace and never has done? Its goal is the maintenance of the occupation on the best terms it can find for itself.

On much the same grounds, we should treat equally sceptically another recent Israeli policy: the refusal by the Israeli Interior Ministry to renew the tourist visas of Palestinians with foreign passports, thereby forcing them to leave their homes and families inside the occupied territories. Many of these Palestinians, who were originally stripped by Israel of their residency rights in violation of international law, often when they left to work or study abroad, have been living on renewable three-month visas for years, even decades.

Amazingly, this compounding of the original violation of these Palestinian families’ rights has received almost no media coverage and so far provoked not a peep of outrage from the big international human rights organisations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

I can hazard a guess why. Unusually Israel has made no serious attempt to justify this measure. Furthermore, unlike the two examples cited above, it is difficult to put forward even a superficially plausible reason why Israel needs to pursue this policy, except for the obvious motive: that Israel believes it has found another bureaucratic wheeze to deny a few more thousand Palestinians their birthright. It is another small measure designed to ethnically cleanse these Palestinians from what might have been their state, were Israel interested in peace.

Unlike the other two examples, it is impossible to assume any good faith on Israel’s part in this story: the measure has no security value, not even of the improbable variety, nor can it be sold as an over-reaction, vengeance, to a provocation by the group affected.

Palestinians with foreign passports are among the richest, best educated and possibly among the most willing to engage in dialogue with Israel. Many have large business investments in the occupied territories they wish to protect from further military confrontation, and most speak fluently the language of the international community — English. In other words, they might have been a bridgehead to a peace process were Israel genuinely interested in one.

But as we have seen, Israel isn’t. If only our media and human rights organisations could bring themselves to admit as much. But because they can’t, the transparently bad faith underpinning Israel’s administrative attempt at ethnic cleansing may be allowed to pass without any censure at all.


Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. He is the author of the forthcoming “Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State” published by Pluto Press, and available in the United States from the University of Michigan Press. His website is www.jkcook.net

The Small Battles

by Daniela, Tuesday 26th September

This weekend I attended a small rally in Tulkarem, where Palestinian NGOs were calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. Although the group was small, they were organized and seemed intent to follow through with this goal. On our way back to Ramallah, our taxi slowed to a stop. A line of ten cars was ahead of us, waiting at the checkpoint.

When our time came to pull up beside the soldiers we all passed our IDs to the driver. The three soldiers glanced at the IDs and began to walk around the car, inspecting the passengers. We opened the door and they instructed my friend to step out and speak with them. He walked over to their station, lifted his shirt upon request, and turned in a circle to prove that he was not carrying a weapon. He said nothing. (One day later, I would watch this same guy as he furiously chanted in front of a group of soldiers, “Hey Israel what do you say, how many kids did you kill today?”)

The three soldiers spoke to him for a short time, and then asked the driver to pull over to the side and wait while they called in my friend’s ID. “It will only take five minutes,” they said, and went back to chatting. One soldier appeared bored with this game, and blithely urged his friend to just let us pass, but he refused.

Five minutes turned into fifteen, and the car’s passengers began to get restless. After my friend’s failed attempt to reason with the soldiers, I decided to get out, and use any pull that I might have as a U.S. citizen to get back the ID.

“What do you want,” called out one soldier as I approached them.

“Listen, I’m not sure what the problem is, but we’re really in a hurry,” I said, trying to sound casual and degrading at the same time.

“What’s your hurry, do you have to catch a plane back to the U.S. or something?” one of the younger ones joked.

“No, but there are people in that car that have things to do with their day. They have to get to work, they have to meet people in Ramallah, they have lives to get back to.”

“This will only take a few minutes, we have to check your friend’s ID.”

“Why,” I asked.

“I don’t know,” said another one.

“You don’t know, but you’re making us wait here for 20 minutes?”

“Well, he could be a suspect,” he responded authoritatively.

“He could be a suspect? That’s it?” I said, trying to be careful with my words. “Listen, can you just give me his ID and let us go. We really need to get to Ramallah.”

They looked me up and down, and then hesitantly handed me the green ID. I snatched it up and walked back to the car.

When I was only a few steps away, the youngest of the soldiers called back to me, “Don’t hate us sweetie,” in a tone of condescension that I had not been subjected to in a while.

I turned around, prepared to say everything that I thought this kid needed to hear, everything that I hadn’t spoken out loud since I arrived in Palestine. But I looked down at the ID in my hand, wondered what might happen to my fellow travelers if I talked back to the soldiers, thought about the four more checkpoints we would have to go through that day, and remembered that this wasn’t my fight.

Recently I have been working on a report for ADDAMEER (Arabic for conscience, a prisoner support and human rights association) on Palestinian child detainees, and the various military regulations that apply to their interrogation, trial, and detention. Advocacy agencies will often make the point that most Israeli military regulations consistently violate international laws. For example, Palestinian children are tried as adults when they reach the age of 16 and will be placed in adult prisons. They are denied the right to education, the right to congregate in prayer, and are subjected to both physical and psychological abuse on a daily basis. But what do all of these small arguments matter when they are merely tiny details in a much larger injustice?

I was interviewing an Israeli lawyer the other day on the differences in treatment between Israeli children and Palestinian children. He mentioned that Israeli children who are convicted are often sent to rehabilitation centers, and not to juvenile prisons. When I pointed out that this option has not been provided to Palestinian children he scoffed at the idea. “The help [a Palestinian child prisoner] might need is not the help that Israeli occupying system would be able or ready to supply,” he said. “What will be the rehabilitation? Education to Zionism? Or will Palestinian social workers, who identify with the Palestinian cause (and may be potential
prisoners themselves) be let inside to help the children?”

It is rare that I will see a lawyer make the argument at trial that this system, as a whole, is illegal. It is rare even to hear someone bring up international law in the proceedings. With the exception of administrative detention cases, or cases of torture, international standards have no place in these military courts. More often than not, there will be a plea bargain, and if they’re lucky they will get their client’s sentence down a few months. As no one is listening to the big arguments, they have to make these small arguments day in and day out: This child has never been arrested, so his sentence for throwing rocks should be reduced…This man has a family to take care of, so may he pay a fine for belonging to the PFLP party instead of serving time?

Last week, I was able to attend the appeal hearing for the members of the Palestinian Parliament that have been held in Israeli jails since June. A few days before, a military judge had ordered the release of these detainees, on bail, for the duration of the trial, but this was delayed in order to give the prosecutor time to appeal. Five minutes into the trial my translator had to abandon me, so I stood silently and did my best to pick up a few words.

All of the hearings are conducted in Hebrew, but a soldier will stand at the back of the room and translate in Arabic. Most of the time his words will be mumbled, so it’s nearly impossible for the detainee’s families to understand what is happening. The defense attorney went on at length, speaking for nearly half an hour straight. The court was definitely standing room only that day, as all of the seats were occupied by reporters. I wondered if the judge would have allowed the defense attorney to continue for this long if members of the media weren’t watching him like hawks. The members of the legislative council sat quietly, occasionally mumbling something to their lawyers and laughing. I had seen the faces of all of these men on posters plastered up around Ramallah. In their pictures, they looked dignified in their suits and ties, resembling every politician I have ever seen. Now, even in their brown jumpsuits and shackles, they still seemed determined to look stately.

The defense attorney was still presenting his case, and all I could think was, how could he possibly have that much to say? What more is there to say than, “This is completely illegal. You can’t arrest someone for being a democratically elected official.” Done. Case closed. But things do not work that way around here.

There have been moments in the history of this occupation when defense lawyers have decided to boycott the trials altogether. They will make a statement that they cannot participate in this instrument of the occupation. The organization I’m currently working with has often called for such boycotts, but will never follow through with them without the full support of the prisoners. After all, it is they who will bear the brunt. I was speaking to a good friend the other day about his time in prison. He said that these boycotts had occurred during his time, but it was always damaging to the prisoners. If a group of lawyers made a public statement about the illegality of the Israeli Military Courts, any prisoner associated with them would undoubtedly be sentenced to double the amount of time. This is a risk most lawyers are not willing to take, nor should they—unless their client is ready to take that risk with them.

So I sit back each day and watch the small battles being fought, but not often won. I’m still trying to figure out my role in all of this, but for now I’m satisfied in getting the stories of those I meet out to all of you. So here are the words of one client of ADDAMEER who is currently being held under administrative detention. This means that he is held without charges or trial, and his attorney is not permitted to see the secret file against him. Technically he may only be held like this for six months, but most administrative detainees have their sentences renewed indefinitely. His name is Yahir, and he is 18 years old:

“During the last 10 days of my Detention Order, I start to think about the outside world. About my family and friends, how things are outside, what all my friends are doing, how they are spending their time. When my Detention Order is renewed, I feel shattered. I am depressed and frustrated because in my mind the renewal means nofamily, no friends, no knowledge of the outside world.

“On the day of renewal, the prison authorities move 26 prisoners all together and put us in 3 cells. We leave our section at 8:30 in the morning and have to wait until the end of the day, when all the 26 prisoners have finished, before we are returned to our section.

“During the renewal hearings, I sit and wish I would hear the word ‘release’ and I wait for the judge to say ‘sha’rur’ (release). I don’t understand what the translator says as he speaks too quickly and sometimes I have to ask him to repeat.

“On the last hearing, when my detention was renewed, I told the judge that I am only 18 and that there is nothing against me and that I have never been in prison. I wanted to know what the secret file against me has in it. I told him I was from Qalqilya, which is literally a prison anyway due to the wall. I asked him to release me. My request was refused.

“The life of the Administrative Detainee is all about waiting. We don’t know when we will go home. When our detention order is about to end, all our thinking goes to the outside world. We daydream about our family and friends and what we will do when we are released.

“I have seen Detainees receive a renewal of their detention on the day they are supposed to be released, and they go mad. One Detainee, Nimmer Nazal in my section gave all his prison belongings away on the morning he was to be released. He was given a renewal on that day and he lost his temper.

“Then in the evening he had to ask to get all his belongings back again…”