At 4pm today Sheikh Jarrah demonstrated against the Israeli settler takeover and partial demolition of the Darwish Hijazi home yesterday.
The day began with a meeting held in Sheikh Jarrah’s Um Kamal protest tent, which has become a powerful symbol of Palestinian steadfastness in face of the Israeli ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem, and international Human Rights Workers (HRWs) heard moving stories from local residents whose houses are under threat of demolition. From there, around 30 demonstrators accompanied by HRWs marched on the Hijazi house to find Israeli settlers on the stolen land. The protesters attempted to gain access to the property, only to be initially denied by settler security and Israeli police, and then a large deployment of Israeli Police and Border Police.
The protesters remained at the site, chanting and demanding the settlers leave the property. The Border police later began to attack the crowd, pushing and kicking protesters as they lay on the ground. One Palestinian woman was arrested.
As of 7.30pm, the protest has disbanded but HRWs remain with Mair Hasan, the head of a nearby household who has just today been issued with orders that he must vacate his property for two weeks, starting from 8.30pm tonight, keeping a distance of at least 1km from the home. He is married and has 5 children.
The case of Sheikh Jarrah
The Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in East Jerusalem was built by the UN and Jordanian government in 1956 to house Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war. However, with the the start of the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, following the 1967 war, settlers began claiming ownership of the land the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood was build on.
Stating that they had purchased the land from a previous Ottoman owner in the 1800s, settlers claimed ownership of the land. In 1972 settlers successfully registered this claim with the Israeli Land Registrar.
The 28 families face eviction from their homes. In November 2008, the al-Kurd family was violently evicted from their home in Sheikh Jarrah. Two weeks thereafter, Mohammad al-Kurd died from a stress induced heart attack.
Currently, the Hannoun and the al-Ghawe families face eviction from their Sheikh Jarrah homes. However, all 28 families are battling eviction in Israeli court.
On July 26th a group of settlers led by Arie king took over a Palestinian house in Sheikh Jarrah to which they where given custody of in a very controversial decision of the Israeli court. While trying to prevent the settlers from taking over the house and demolishing it, 11 activists (three Palestinians, seven internationals and one Israeli) where arrested.
At about 11:30, with the support of police and army units, settlers came to demolish a home whose owner passed away recently. This is part of the settler organization’s larger campaign to dispose Palestinians of their land and to settle Jews in the East Jerusalem neighborhood, especially in the holy basin – the area which surrounds the old city of Jerusalem.
Activists at the scene attempted to non-violently prevent the entrance of the settler bulldozer into the home, an effort that was met with unrelenting force by the police and army, and ended with the violent arrest of the 11 activists. The activists were held and interrogated at Salah-Adin police station in Sheikh Jarrah, and 8 of them were transferred to the Russian compound and held overnight.
Currently, 28 families face eviction in the East Jerusalem neighborhood, and others have already been evicted and settlers now occupy their houses. Sheikh Jarrah is a Palestinian neighborhood, and the continued efforts by settlers to move Jews there is yet another way of creating “facts on the ground” and preventing any real, just solution from being reached in the future.
The U.S. administration has issued a stiff warning to Israel not to build in the area known as E-1, which lies between Jerusalem and the West Bank settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim. Any change in the status quo in E-1 would be “extremely damaging,” even “corrosive,” the message said.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed in the past to finally build the controversial E-1 housing project – as have several premiers before him, though none has done so due to American pressure. He opened his recent election campaign with a visit to Ma’aleh Adumim in which he declared: “I will link Jerusalem to Ma’aleh Adumim via the Mevasseret Adumim neighborhood, E-1. I want to see one continuous string of built-up Jewish neighborhoods.”
He has also warned in the past that failure to build in E-1 would allow the Palestinians to create territorial contiguity around Jerusalem.
Just before his government was installed this spring, the media reported that Netanyahu had reached an agreement with his largest coalition partner, Yisrael Beiteinu, to unfreeze construction in E-1. However, that clause was ultimately not included in the coalition agreement.
The plans for E-1 call for building 3,500 housing units, along with commercial areas and tourism sites, to create a single urban expanse stretching from Jerusalem to Ma’aleh Adumim and strengthen Israel’s hold on East Jerusalem, which would then be completely surrounded by Jewish neighborhoods.
The United States has always vehemently opposed this plan, fearing it would deprive a future Palestinian state of territorial contiguity, cut the West Bank in two and sever East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank – all of which would thwart any hope of signing a final-status agreement and establishing a Palestinian state.
President Barack Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, vigorously opposed building in E-1 during the terms of prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. Sharon did approve construction of a police station in E-1, and under Olmert, infrastructure work in the area continued. But neither ever approved construction of either the residential units or the commercial buildings, for fear of a confrontation with the United States.
Four years ago, after resigning from Sharon’s government, Netanyahu attacked him for giving in to American pressure on E-1. “A sovereign government must build in its eternal capital,” he said. “Sharon set a precedent that will lead to the division of Jerusalem.”
The Obama’s administration – which opposes all construction in East Jerusalem, even of a few houses – would be even more outraged by a large-scale project such as E-1.
It is demanding a moratorium on Jewish building in East Jerusalem until an agreement is reached on the city’s legal status, arguing that the cumulative effect of even small-scale projects would destroy any chance of a peace agreement and arouse fierce opposition in the Arab world, especially among East Jerusalem Arabs. Small projects include the construction of 20 apartments in the Shepherd Hotel in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood or plans to build new Jewish housing in Silwan.
At Sunday’s cabinet meeting, however, Netanyahu rejected this American stance. “United Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Our sovereignty in it is not subject to appeal, and among other things, this means that Jerusalem residents can buy apartments anywhere in the city,” he said. “We cannot accept the idea that Jews should not have the right to live and buy anywhere in Jerusalem.”
Next week, three senior American officials will visit Israel: special envoy George Mitchell, National Security Advisor James Jones and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Mitchell will continue his efforts to reach agreement on a settlement freeze, including in East Jerusalem, while the other two will focus on the Iranian threat.
The United States views East Jerusalem as no different than an illegal West Bank outpost with regard to its demand for a freeze on settlement construction, American sources have informed both Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
This clarification came in the context of a growing crisis in U.S.-Israel relations over the planned construction of some 20 apartments for Jews in the Shepherd Hotel, in East Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. The U.S. has demanded that the project be halted, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the cabinet meeting Sunday that “Israel will not agree to edicts of this kind in East Jerusalem.”
“United Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people in the State of Israel, and our sovereignty over the city is not subject to appeal,” he continued. “Our policy is that Jerusalem residents can purchase apartments anywhere in the city. This has been the policy of all Israeli governments. There is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the west of the city, and there is no ban on Jews building or buying in the city’s east. This is the policy of an open city.”
Saying that Israel could not accept Jews being forbidden to live in anywhere in Jerusalem, Netanyahu added: “I can imagine what would happen if someone proposed that Jews could not live or buy in certain neighborhoods of London, New York, Paris or Rome. A huge international outcry would surely ensue. It is even more impossible to agree to such an edict in East Jerusalem.”
Asked to comment on these remarks, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was in New Delhi, said the administration is trying to reach an agreement with Israel on settlements, and “the negotiations are intense,” the Associated Press reported.
Later Sunday, Netanyahu met with his advisors to discuss Israel’s response to Washington’s demand.
“I was surprised by the American demand,” a source present at the meeting quoted him as saying. “In my conversation with [U.S. President Barack] Obama in Washington, I told him I could not accept any restrictions on our sovereignty in Jerusalem. I told him Jerusalem is not a settlement, and there is nothing to discuss about a freeze there.”
“In my previous term [as premier], I built thousands of apartments in the Har Homa neighborhood of Jerusalem, defying the entire world,” Netanyahu added. “Therefore, it is clear that I will not capitulate in this case – especially when we are talking about a mere 20 apartments.”
Other ministers also criticized the American stance at the cabinet meeting. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, for instance, termed it “puzzling,” while Interior Minister and Shas Chairman Eli Yishai declared that “no agency in the world can stop construction in Jerusalem.”
And Shin Bet security service chief Yuval Diskin told the ministers that the PA and its security services are engaged in widespread efforts to keep Palestinians from selling land in Jerusalem to Jews. He also said that Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi of Qatar has allocated $21 million to Hamas activists to buy buildings and establish infrastructure in Jerusalem.
Washington’s objections to the Shepherd Hotel project were first voiced by senior State Department officials at a meeting with Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren last Thursday, in response to a request by PA President Mahmoud Abbas. The officials complained that the construction would change the neighborhood’s demographic balance and harm its Palestinian residents.
Oren responded that the land in question was privately owned, having been purchased in 1985 by American Jewish tycoon Irving Moskowitz, and the project has received all the necessary permits from the Jerusalem municipality.
Also Sunday, Abbas’ bureau chief, Rafiq Husseini, said he hoped the U.S. would not back down on its demand for a complete settlement freeze, including in East Jerusalem.
In an interview with the Nazareth-based radio station A-Shams, Husseini said, “from our standpoint, there is no room for a compromise [on this issue], and we expect the American administration to stick to the determined stance that envoy [George] Mitchell expressed as far back as 2001. Any compromise that enables continued construction … will do nothing whatsoever to advance the diplomatic process.”
Mairav Zonszein, Antony Loewenstein & Joseph Dana | Mondoweiss
18 July 2009
The occupation can seem predictably mundane from a distance. To most Israelis the settlement project is seen as a problem, but a problem happening “over there” and utterly removed from their lives. Rampaging settlers are viewed occasionally on television. Violent Palestinians are seen to resist for no apparent reason. The international community and Barack Obama are protesting the illegal outposts and ongoing colonial project in the West Bank with polls suggesting that many Israelis are opposed to this apparently unfair pressure.
They should spend a day in the West Bank.
For the last three months, Israeli Ta’ayush activists have been accompanying Palestinian farmers from Safa to their lands just below the settlement of Bat Ayin. Since a child from the settlement was murdered in April, settlers have been consistently attacking Palestinians when they attempt to work in their fields, as well as burning the fields themselves – all under the nose of the IDF, which has done nothing to prevent the crimes or punish them.
The scenes from Safa in this period have been grim. If it is not the settlers aggressively driving out the local farmers, it is the army, which acts in complete disregard of Israeli Supreme Court rulings. After weeks of confrontations and brutal arrests, the army seemed to realize that we would not go away, and they would have to change their tactics.
Two weeks ago the army issued a 45-day closed military zone order on the agricultural land of Safa for all Israelis and internationals, asserting that our services would not be needed any longer, as they would ensure the Palestinians could work their land with the army’s protection. In these two weeks, Ta’ayush decided to respect the order and see if the army would indeed deliver on what it promised. However, during this time, the settlers infiltrated the agricultural land of Safa and cut down fruit trees and burned crop fields. Thus, despite the area being a closed military zone for all Israelis, somehow the settlers managed to get past the IDF and commit crimes.
This morning we went back to Safa. As Palestinian Ta’ayush activist Issa Slevi told us later, “The soldiers are settlers but in uniform. They both symbolize the occupation.”
After a local family gave us a sugary glass of tea under a blackberry tree, a large group of Ta’ayush activists and internationals from the International Solidarity Movement and Palestine Solidarity Project walked through the village of Safa towards the fields. The town itself is dusty, with some homes half-finished while other structures have circular staircases on the outside. “I Love Hamas” was sprayed in English on a wall. Children pointed and waved while the women stood together and smiled. Some men led the procession of around 50 people, including the Palestinians. Accredited journalists, from Reuters and Lebanese media, followed. One even held a gas mask, expecting tear-gas.
It was Saturday and the settlers on the nearby hill were virtually invisible. Their houses and caravans sat illegally nearby. A number of IDF soldiers soon appeared on a horizon and approached from the other end of the dirt track. A confrontation was inevitable. The aim was to accompany the Palestinian farmers to their land in the gorge to protect against settler attacks. In the past, activists were physically assaulted and beaten with batons by the IDF so we expected the worst. We didn’t predict two hours of heated debate and political discussion.
The soldiers announced that the Palestinians were allowed to pass on their own and tend their fields. The farmers were highly skeptical because settlers would likely attack them. Some activists pushed the IDF to join the Palestinians but they were denied access. Minor scuffles ensued. Supreme Court orders were produced to explain a 2006 ruling that refused the military being able to impose a “closed military zone” to prevent Palestinians working their fields. The IDF regularly breaks the law of its own country, let alone international law. Activists see it every week.
Unlike previous encounters, the IDF commander seemed like a reasonable man, urging restraint from his men and trying to avoid contact. It was a fruitless task, as the soldiers seemed incapable or unwilling to understand the Palestinian hesitance to farm on their own. One old Palestinian farmer, the owner of the area, arrived. He rode down the path on a donkey, alighted, and walked with a stick. He was highly agitated and screamed at the soldiers. He lifted his shirt after a while to show bruise marks caused by settlers.
Eventually Palestinians decided to pass, both men and women, while a number of activists sat down in front of the soldiers. Others milled around. Video cameras and cameras were in abundance, possible explaining the less aggressive approach of the soldiers. This didn’t stop them from arresting 10 people, who were all detained briefly and released soon after. The activists – who did not resist arrest – knew that if brought before a judge, the army would have been found to have acted illegally. This explains why so often the army releases them before it can happen.
The location of the encounter was actually beautiful. A gorge sat at the bottom of a valley, with green fields and olive groves dotting the landscape.
As we waited and sat under a tree to find some shade, an IDF soldier approached us “to talk about the issues.” He was an American Jew around 30 who had made “aliya” to Israel in 1997. He was not a religious fanatic but argued rationally, despite the confused nature of his argument. He initially acknowledged the Palestinians were under occupation then later said the land was “disputed” and had been given by Jordan. He said the IDF was a “humanitarian model” to the world.
We asked if he’d read the recent Breaking the Silence report on alleged atrocities in Gaza. He said he had not but criticized the soldiers for staying anonymous. When challenged about the use of white phosphorous in civilian areas, he replied that it was not illegal to do so. In fact, it is illegal to use the destructive weapon for anything other than flares and certainly not in civilian areas. Countless human rights groups have accused Israel of using the weapon during its war against Gaza in December and January.
The soldier said he saw himself as protecting the settlers, Palestinians and activists, though we reminded him that the IDF usually only protects the settlers and covers their crimes. We agreed that the potential for confrontation between all parties was high. But why remove the peaceful non-violent leftists? The settlers were the most violent party in Safa. Why doesn’t his unit bar them from entering the gorge and allow us to farm with the Palestinians? He dismissed this question outright. Although he didn’t reside in a settlement, he mumbled something defensive when challenged why the Israelis hadn’t prevented the burning of the fields in the last days and weeks.
He seemed a little conflicted about his role in the territories, despite his arrogant air. He defended the killing of civilians – “you know what Colin Powell said during the invasion of Panama? In war, there’s always collateral damage” – but he was open to alternative views. We joked that it would take a while doing drugs in India to get over his conscience after the things he’d seen and done in the West Bank.
It was a strange discussion, though largely friendly and slightly accusatory. A case-study of the soldier would probably reveal a deep-seated need to defend his actions. He constantly talked about “protecting Israeli democracy” though his main job is protecting the settlement project. Palestinians despise their presence, even if violent resistance is relatively uncommon these days.
We disagreed amongst ourselves to the importance of engagement with IDF soldiers. Joseph wasn’t convinced of the necessity, believing the actions of the man spoke far louder than words. Ultimately, he defended the occupation. Antony was more circumspect and wondered if such encounters could contribute to a slow, changing attitude within the soldiers. Joseph argued that things were desperate when even the seemingly decent Israelis were finding ways to defend the situation.
After we left Safa, we briefly visited Issa Slevi’s home in Beit Umar, a long-time believer in non-violent action, in a room with a high ceiling. As we drank hibiscus juice and then piping, hot tea, he told us about the reality of constant IDF harassment of towns and fields. “The media presents the Palestinians as murderers and terrorists and the Israelis as victims”, he said. “The whole world identifies with the Israelis.”
Slevi spoke of a time when his hope for a resolution in the early 1990s had inspired him to distribute flowers to soldiers. But today he was despondent about Fatah – “an Oslo puppet regime” – and damned the “peace process” of the 1990s. It has produced nothing more than settlements and settler violence. He compared the situation in Palestine to the Jim Crow period in the US, “when there were signs that were for ‘dogs only.’ Today, the situation is the same for the Palestinians but there are no signs.”
Despite all the abuse and violence, Slevi was fundamentally opposed to violence. He never spoke to settlers. He wanted a country where both peoples could interact and mingle freely, regardless of religion and political affiliation.
The day was relatively normal in an utterly foreign reality.
