Boston Globe: “My Life in Gaza”

by Mona El-Farra, July 10, 2006

The irony is almost beyond belief. Since the capture of an Israeli soldier on June 25, the Gaza Strip has been subjected to a large-scale military operation, what Israel calls “Summer Rain.” Because Israel bombed the power plant, and the area needs electricity to pump water, most of Gaza now has almost no access to drinking water. In the heat of summer, rain would be a blessing far more welcome than the ongoing bombings.

I am already starting to lose track of days and nights, of how many bombs have dropped. Since the main power plant was destroyed, we have had to live with no electricity. What we do get is patchy, and barely enough to recharge our mobile phones and our laptops so that we do not lose all touch with each other and with the outside world.
As a physician, I fear for our patients. Twenty-two hospitals have no electricity. They have to rely on generators, but the generators need fuel. We have enough fuel to last a few days at most, because the borders are sealed so no fuel can get in. The shortage of power threatens the lives of patients on life-support machines and children in intensive care, as well as renal dialysis patients and others. Hundreds of operations have been postponed. The pharmacies were already nearly empty because of Israeli border closures and the cutoff of international aid. What little supplies were left have gone bad in the absence of refrigeration.

Food too is spoiling without refrigeration, and food supplies are low. West Bank farmers threw away truckloads of spoiled fruit after sitting for days and then being denied Israeli permission to enter Gaza. Children grow hungry as we watch the food that could nourish them thrown into the garbage instead. More than 30,000 children suffer from malnutrition, and this number will increase as diarrhea spreads because of the limited supply of clean water and food contamination.

As a mother, I fear for the children. I see the effects of the relentless sonic booms and artillery shelling on my 13-year-old daughter. She is restless, panicked, and afraid to go out, yet frustrated because she can’t see her friends. When Israeli fighter planes fly by day and night, the sound is terrifying. My daughter usually jumps into bed with me, shivering with fear. Then both of us end up crouching on the floor. My heart races, yet I try to pacify my daughter, to make her feel safe. But when the bombs sound, I flinch and scream. My daughter feels my fear and knows that we need to pacify each other. I am a doctor, a mature, middle-aged woman. But with the sonic booming, I become hysterical.

This aggression will leave psychological scars on the children for years to come. Instilling fear, anger and loss in them will not bring peace and security to Israelis.

Ostensibly, this bombing campaign started because of the soldier’s capture. To the outside world it might seem like an easy decision for Palestinians: Let the soldier go, and the siege will end. Yet for Gazans, even in the face of this brutal violence, another decision comes, not with ease, but with resolve. He is one soldier who was captured in a military operation. Today, several hundred Palestinian children and women are locked in Israeli prisons. They deserve their freedom no less than he does. Their families mourn their absence no less than his family does. So while Gazans endure Israel’s rainstorm, most want the soldier held — not harmed — until the women and children are released.

Most Gazans also believe that Israel’s latest assault was pre-planned, that the soldier’s capture is merely a trigger. Israel dropped thousands of shells on Gaza, killing women, children and old people, long before his capture. This time, Israel attacked Gaza within hours of a national consensus accord signed by Fatah and Hamas, which could have led to negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. That would have pushed Israel to give up control of Palestinian land and resources. Gazans believe that the goal of Israel’s military campaign is the destruction of both our elected government and our infrastructure, and with it our will to secure our national rights.

Though we do not now live with ease, we live with resolve. Until the world pressures Israel to recognize our rights in our land, and to pursue a peace that brings freedom and security to Israelis and Palestinians, we both will continue to pay the price.

Mona El-Farra is a physician and human rights advocate in the Gaza Strip.

Ha’aretz: “Israel bars Palestinian Americans for first time since 1967”

by Amira Hass, Ha’aretz, 10th July 2006

For the first time since 1967, Israel is preventing the entry of Palestinians with foreign citizenship, most of them Americans.

Most of those refused entry are arriving from abroad, but have lived and worked for years in the West Bank.

The Interior Ministry and Civil Administration made no formal announcement about a policy change, leaving returnees to discover the situation when they reach the border crossings.
By various estimates, the ban has so far affected several thousand American and European nationals, whom Israel has kept from returning to their homes and jobs, or from visiting their families in the West Bank.

This could potentially impact many more thousands who live in the territories – including university instructors and researchers, employees working in various vital development programs and business owners – as well as thousands of foreign citizens who pay annual visits to relatives there. The policy also applies to foreigners who are not Palestinian but are married to Palestinians, and to visiting academics.

The first group to suffer are Palestinians born in the territories, whose residency Israel revoked after 1967 while they were working or studying abroad. Some eventually married residents of the territories, or returned to live with aging parents and siblings. Israel rejected their applications for “family reunification” (i.e., requests to have their residency restored). However, until recently Israel permitted them to continue living in the territories on tourist visas, renewable every three months by exiting and reentering the country. In some cases the State also granted them work permits.

Citizens of Arab states (whether or not of Palestinian origin) have been barred from entering Israel since 2000. A handful were allowed in as “exceptional humanitarian cases” – mostly when a first-degree relative is dying or has died – but even this practice was suspended in April.

One of the demands that Israel has posed in specific cases which attorney Leah Tsemel represented before the High Court of Justice, is that applications for visitation permits be authorized by a low-ranking official from the Palestinian Interior Ministry, who is not affiliated with Hamas. The ministry refuses to comply with this condition. Now it turns out that this policy has been extended to U.S. and European citizens.

An Israeli Interior Ministry spokesperson told Haaretz that this is not a new policy, but merely a “procedural updating.” But the High Court petitions department at the State Prosecutor’s Office, which has been addressing the phenomenon with regard to several specific petitions, wrote Tsemel on May 2, 2006 that a policy on entry of foreign nationals to the West Bank would be formulated only “at the start of next week.” Since then Tsemel has not learned whether such a policy was indeed drafted.

The U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv told Haaretz that no Israeli official informed them of a change in entry policy, and said that the United States cannot intervene in sovereign decisions of another country. Several people who were refused entry and spoke with U.S. representatives said that the consulate and embassy are well aware of the apparently new policy.

An e-mail from the department of U.S. Citizen Services in Jerusalem to a U.S. citizen who had inquired about entering the West Bank stated that the consul general had met with a representative from the Israeli Interior Ministry regarding the government’s entry policies: “The Israeli official conceded that 90-day visa entry cards, which were once routinely granted in the past, especially to U.S. citizens, are now more difficult to obtain, specifically for Palestinian American citizens traveling to the West Bank and for U.S. nationals affiliated with humanitarian organizations. Both the U.S. Embassy and the Consulate in Jerusalem are pursuing the issue.”

Israel’s Civil Administration stated in response that “the entry to the region of foreigners who are not residents of the territories takes place by means of visit permits issued by the Palestinian Authority and approved by the Israeli side,” because coordination stopped after September 2000, and entry was permitted in exceptional humanitarian cases – a practice that was also suspended after the Hamas government was formed. Today, the statement continued, cases “involving special humanitarian need” are being considered.

The Civil Administration confirmed that the applications must be conveyed by a low-ranking official who is unaffiliated with Hamas. The Interior Ministry and Civil Administration declined to comment on the fact that for 40 years, Palestinian citizens of Western countries did not required a”visitation permit.”

Israeli Army in Hebron Violates Israeli High Court Order – Again


The back entrance to the Abu Haykal family’s home. The Israeli military is now confining them to this rather than the front of the their home.

by ISM Hebron and Tel Rumeida Project

The Hani Abu Haykal family, which lives directly opposite the Tel Rumeida settlement in the Tel Rumeida neighborhood of Al-Khalil (Hebron), has received a written military order declaring the street in front of their house a closed military zone until November 3rd, Abu Haykal told human rights workers today. The order prevents Abu Haykal and the nine other members of his household from using the main gate to their home, forcing them instead to use a rough, roundabout path through olive groves to reach their jobs, shopping, or anything else.

The order is in direct contradiction with an order previously issued by the Israeli High Court allowing Hani Abu Haykal and his family to use the street. The family’s lawyer has gone to court in an effort to have the recent order lifted. Hani said he has also asked the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) for help with the problem, and monitors from TIPH (Temporary International Presence in Hebron) claim their group is also trying to get the order lifted. For now, though, the family is complying with it.

According to Hani Abu Haykal, the order, in Hebrew and Arabic, with an accompanying map, was delivered at around 6 p.m. on Thursday, July 6th by an officer from the Israeli civil administration who identified himself as Hamoudeh. The order applies only to Palestinians, not to people with Israeli IDs. When Abu Haykal asked why the order had been issued, Hamoudeh said it was because the military anticipates that there could be problems in the area in the coming months. When Abu Haykal objected that the back way in and out of his home wasn’t suitable for everyday use by the family, which includes an elderly woman and another woman with heart problems as well as several children, the officer looked at the pathway and pronounced it “not bad,” according to Abu Haykal.

The issuing of the order closing the street to Hani Abu Haykal and his family follows by roughly three weeks an incident in which Hani and his son Jamil, 13, were attacked and beaten by a solider and approximately 20 settlers as they tried to enter their front gate on their return from the family’s shop in the nominaly Palestinian-controlled part of Al-Khalil (H1). The pair had already passed three Israeli checkpoints, but the soldier stationed in front of their house demanded to see his ID and then declared that he was not permitted to enter his own gate. Hani explained that he had an order from the Israeli High Court guaranteeing him the right to use the street to reach his house, but the soldier refused to listen, pointed his gun at the pair, and cocked it. Meanwhile, settlers gathered in the street and began throwing stones. Abu Haykal and his son were forced by the soldier to turn around and travel back down the street through the crowd of stone-throwing settlers and walk approximately a quarter mile around the Tel Rumeida hill to the path leading to the back entrance of their home.

Human rights workers live just down the street from the Abu Haykal house but are not permitted to use the road either. Instead, they must use the same roundabout way to visit the family.

Abu Haykal also reported that the family has been trying to get a new phone line installed in their home, but has been unable to to get permission for a worker from the phone company to visit the house to do the installation.

In another ominous development Hani Abu Haykal said that soldiers recently visited shopkeepers in the Baab al-Zawiyye business district, in H1 near the Checkpoint 56 entrance to Tel Rumeida district. After checking their IDs, the soldiers reportedly told the shopkeepers that their shops might be shut down and the area declared a closed military zone in the future.

Abu Haykal’s mother has a heart condition and was seriously ill recently. As Palestinian vehicles, including ambulances, are not allowed into Tel Rumeida, Abu Haykal had to negotiate for two days with the Red Cross and the DCO (District Command Office of the military) to allow an ambulance into Tel Rumeida to pick up his sick mother. When permission was finally given, the ambulance was held up at a checkpoint near the Beit Romano settlement for seven hours because soldiers insisted that the ambulance must wait until an army Jeep could escort it into Tel Rumeida.

When the ambulance finally arrived at the Abu Haykal house, soldiers insisted that they needed to examine it. They removed all of the equipment from the ambulance and checked under the hood. This took half an hour. As Abu Haykal’s mother was carried from the house into the ambulance, settlers began throwing rocks. Soldiers did nothing to stop them.

Abu Haykal’s mother was so ill at this point that she was kept in the intensive care unit for five days and ten days total in the hospital.

After she was released from the hospital, the ambulance waited for five hours at the roadblock leading into Tel Rumeida for soldiers to let it in.

The family complains of isolation because their friends and family are too afraid to visit them. This is especially distressing for the children when it is their birthday.

When school is in session, Abu Haykal leaves work to walk his kids home in order to protect them from settler attacks. On Saturday, the Jewish sabbath, when many settlers are out on the street, the Abu Haykal children go directly from their school to their father’s work and wait to go home until he is done because it is too dangerous to go home during the day.

Recently Abu Haykal’s car was set on fire by settlers. Witnesses said soldiers were present and did nothing to stop the torching of the car.

In the past, soldiers have told Abu Haykal that they are here only to protect settlers. This means they will not intervene if they see settlers attacking Palestinians. However, if they see Palestinians attacking settlers, they will shoot the Palestinians. In addition, soldiers have reported that soldiers and police do not have permission to shoot at or harm settlers, even if they are shooting at Palestinians.

Fourth of July in an Occupied Land

by Jill and Liz, Michigan Peace Team, July 6th

Several days ago, we emailed a reflection and analysis of a peaceful demonstration in Bil’in and some data that underscores the severity of the settlements in the West Bank. Another critical issue is the mushrooming of settlements in and around Jerusalem, specifically East Jerusalem, the traditionally and historically Palestinian neighborhoods, and in the Old City, which is considered to be part of East Jerusalem.

Reflecting on our experiences in Occupied Territory

A few days ago, on July 4th, we marked the 230th year of independence from British rule (and occupation) in the United States of America. Yet to observe this occasion from (Occupied) East Jerusalem and the West Bank causes us to question how we understand ‘independence’ and what would independence look like for the Palestinians? On the surface, life proceeds “as usual” people work and laugh and play, shop, cook, go home to their families, and visit friends.

But, from the vantage point of a rooftop balcony overlooking the Muslim Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem, we see a proliferation of Israeli flags. These mark the settlements which are proliferating in the Old City and throughout East Jerusalem are growing at an alarming rate. Looking at the landscape, we begin to recognize the architecture of occupation: large Israeli flags displayed in the Christian and Muslim Quarters of the Old City, road blocks and checkpoints for travel between adjacent cities (such as Jerusalem and Bethlehem or Ramallah), large tracts of empty space, demolished buildings. There is a military or police presence at nearly every turn.

Some background on Jerusalem

Historically, Jerusalem has been the capital of Palestine. It has served as both cultural and religious center for the three Abrahamic traditions Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Old City, encircled by 16th century walls, takes up less than one square kilometer of the greater Jerusalem area, which is currently 123 square km. In 1947, the UN-drafted partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state recommended that Jerusalem be designated an ‘international’ city. This recommendation was ultimately not accepted, and during the war of 1948, an estimated 70,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes in the western areas of Jerusalem, and at least 40 Palestinian villages in and around Jerusalem were destroyed.

The 1949 ceasefire agreement between Israel and Jordan divided Jerusalem into the Jordanian-controlled East and Israeli-controlled West, and shortly thereafter, the Israeli Prime Minister illegally declared West Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel [and in 1980, Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem and declared the entire city as the “eternal, undivided capital of Israel” – most embassies (including the US and UK) are still retained in Tel-Aviv in non-recognition of this illegal move]. Since the war of 1967, the state of Israel has been an occupying power in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. And since that time, the Israeli government has annexed Palestinian villages to the east of Jerusalem such as Sawahr eh Ash-Sharqiyeh, Al-Izzariyya (Bethany), Abu Dis and At-Tur and incorporated them into Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries. However, all Palestinians who reside within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem (“Jerusalemites”) are classified as forgein citizens with residency, and not as citizens of Israel. (Passia 2006, p. 324)

Israeli settlements in and around Jerusalem

“Under international law, East Jerusalem is an occupied territory, which means that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable and Israel has no claim to East Jerusalem by virtue of having taken control of it militarily.” (Passia 2006, p. 324)

Nevertheless, settlements have sprung up around, and more recently, IN East Jerusalem. In fact, “[m]ost of the largest settlements are located in the Jerusalem region. The ten most populated settlements house 59% of the total West Bank settler population. (p. 294) One of the most populous Israeli settlement is Ma’ale Adumin, which has nearly 30,000 residents, and is located within greater Jerusalem. While PASSIA reports that ”settlers comprise less than 10% of the total Israeli-Jewis h population,” the state of Israel has expropriated an estimated 79% of land in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (pp. 294, 297).

More recently, Israeli settlers have been moving into the Muslim and Christian Quarters of the Old City, including a site in the northeastern corner of the Old City. Such a settlement was first reported in May 2005, and on July 4, 2005, the Israeli Ministry of Housing and Construction “gave its provisional approval to move forward on a plan (Town Planning Scheme 9870) to construct a new Jewish settlement, in the Burj Al-Laqlaq area of the Old City’s Muslim Quarter, near Herod’s Gate.” (p. 337). Furthermore, on July 10, 2005, one year after the International Court of Justice declared Israel’s separation barrier illegal under international law, the Israeli cabinet approved a decision to complete the wall in and around East Jerusalem by the end of August (p. 337). In order to complete the barrier, land was confiscated from the towns of Sawahreh Ash-Sharqiyeh, Al-Izzariyya, Abu Dis and At-Tur.

Interconnections the Separation Barrier, Settlements, and Israeli Occupation

It has been noted time and again that the separation barrier is not about increasing security, but a land grab by the State of Israel. This barrier takes many forms: it exists as an 8-m high concrete wall, trenches, fences, razor wire and military-only roads. In addition, there is a 30-100 meter wide “buffer zone” east of the Wall with electrified fences, trenches, sensors and military patrol roads and some sections have armed sniper towers. The Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs has noted that,

“In June 2002 the Government of Israel decided to build the separation barrier to prevent the uncontrolled entry of Palestinians from the West Bank into Israel. In fact, the separation barrier is part of a strategy that aims to annex large parts of West Bank/Gaza Strip land while encircling Palestinian population centers. The barrier runs through some of the most fertile parts of the West Bank and has severely harmed agricultural activity, which is one of the main sources of income of many villages.” (Passia 2006, p. 298)

The costs of the occupation are high not only in economic, but also social, political and psychological. The ideological settlers are ruthless in their desire for making the entire State of Israel a Jewish-only state, and are often violent towards Palestinians physically and psychologically violent, by spitting, slapping or beating nearby Palestinians (especially those who stand up for the injustices against them), and also using verbal threats intended to intimidate. Many settlements are protected by a private police force, and when settlers walk through the Old City together, they are accompanied by armed guards. This is a measure of intimidation against Palestinians, but is also an indication of the deep insecurity felt by many settlers.

In conclusion, an October 6, 2005 article in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz reports:

“[A]ccording to a recent study by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies the separation [sic.] barrier also harms Jerusalem’s Jewish population in as far as ‘To a large extent, Jerusalem has changed from a central city providing service to more than a million people in the surrounding area to a peripheral town. It is a limited metropolitan area that serves only 20% of the residents it formerly did, most of them Jews.’ The report adds that ‘the barrier has a negative effect on life in the city and its surrounding area’ and in the long run may increase hostility and terrorism. ” (quoted in Passia 2006, p. 338)

Sources

  • Muller, Andreas. A Wall on the Green Line? Jerusalem and Beit Sahour: The Alternative Information Center, 2004.
  • Palestine and Palestinians Beit Sahour: Alternative Tourism Group, 2005.
  • Passia 2006. Jerusalem: Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, 2005.

CUPE President: “Slurs will not silence us”

by Sid Ryan, [Canadian] Globe & Mail, July 7th

When our union recently passed a resolution critical of policies of the government of Israel, it was savagely attacked in several quarters and labelled by many as anti-Semitic.

When the Toronto Conference of the United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant church in the country, called for a limited boycott and divestment strategy toward Israel, it, too, faced a barrage of baseless allegations of anti-Semitism (though little was said about the two Jewish organizations, the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians and Jewish Women to End the Occupation, who joined in the church group’s action). Canadian media, with few exceptions, refuse to report on the plight of innocent Palestinians not involved in terrorist activities. They insist on focusing on the minority of Palestinians who inflict despicable violence on innocent civilians. The media refuse to address Israel’s violation of international law, the Geneva Conventions, the rulings of the International Court [of Justice] in The Hague and a number of United Nations resolutions. This lack of reporting leaves the Canadian population with a one-sided view. Israel’s recent bombing campaign and incursion in Gaza has destroyed schools and universities, demolished bridges and roads, and killed several Palestinians. The sonic-boom bombardments wreak havoc on a civilian population, smashing windows and doors and terrorizing children. More damaging, there is no electricity for more than 700,000 people — no lights, no refrigerators, and no fans in the suffocating heat. It means no clean water — the public water supply uses electricity — leading to disease, possibly cholera. It means limited services in hospitals and clinics dependant on electricity.

Were this Northern Ireland, the wrath of the international community would be swift and harsh. Yet when we criticize this behaviour, we are labelled anti-Semites — a convenient tactic used to shut down debate and silence us from any criticism of the state of Israel.

Even Switzerland, renowned for its neutrality, criticized Israel this week. “There is no doubt that Israel has not taken the precautions required of it in international law to protect the civilian population and infrastructure,” said a statement issued by the Swiss Foreign Ministry. The strongest condemnation for the irresponsible Gaza campaign came Tuesday from the editorial page of one of Israel’s most respected newspapers, Haaretz.

In an astonishing moment of frankness and brevity, the newspaper called for the permanent withdrawal of the Israeli Defence Forces from the occupied territories.

“The right always proposes the same recipe, but in ever-increasing doses: If we did not manage to deter them by using force, we need to use more force; and if that fails, then we need to use even more force. The establishment of the settlements was, and remains, a form of using force, as is construction of the fence along a route that harms Palestinian life more than necessary for security purposes,” the editorial stated. “The attempt to topple an elected government by means of tanks and to remove members of an elected parliament by arresting them also constitutes a policy of aggression.”

“At this time, it must be reiterated,” the newspaper said, “and it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to find the time and the strength of will to do so — that Israel has no option in the long run other than withdrawing from the territories and from the occupation.” There you have it in a nutshell, the essence of CUPE Ontario’s resolution spoken from the pages of Israel’s influential newspaper. I now expect to hear B’nai Brith, the Canadian Jewish Congress and Simon Wiesenthal Centre, together with all their cronies, scream and hurl accusations of anti-Semitism at the editorial board of Haaretz. Or is that treatment is reserved for CUPE and the United Church?

Sid Ryan is president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (Ontario).

Links were added by the ISM Media Group.