Palestinian home and olive tree destroyed by settlers in At-Tuwani

Christan Peacemaker Team

17 July 2009

AT-TUWANI: On the morning of 17 July, a Palestinian family from the village of At-Tuwani discovered that their newly constructed house was destroyed during the previous night. In addition, the family discovered an olive tree located near the new house cut in half. The family believes that Israel settlers from the Ma’on settlement and Havot Ma’on outpost are responsible for the vandalism. Despite being threatened by both settlers and officers from the Israel military District Coordinator (DCO), the family plans to rebuild the house.

On 16 July Palestinian residents of At-Tuwani began construction on six new small houses on land owned by the village. During the construction, Israeli settlers from Havot Ma’on outpost shouted at Palestinians working on the houses. Officers from the DCO told Palestinian land owners that the construction was illegal and threatened to arrest the workers. In addition, an officer told one At-Tuwani resident that everything he owned would be destroyed if he did not stop building. Despite these risks, Palestinians say that they plan to continue construction to assert their right to build on their own land.

While the Israeli army restricts Palestinian building, Ma’on and Carmel settlements and Avigail and Havot Ma’on outposts in the area continue to expand. Members of Christian Peacemaker Teams have documented continuous settlement expansion since 2004.

For photos of the demolished house, visit: http://cpt.org/gallery/album289

For photos of recent settlement expansion, visit: http://cpt.org/gallery/album288

EU eyes exports from Israeli settlements

Ralf Beste and Christoph Schult | BusinessWeek

14 July 2009

The Israeli settlement known as Maale Adumim sits fortress-like atop a red stone plateau. In the Bible, the road to the plateau was known as the “steep red road.”

As the largest Israeli settlement in the Palestinian-administered areas of the West Bank, Maale Adumim is home to 40,000 people. Bulldozers are clearing lots for new houses on its outskirts. Its population is growing by the week and, in recent years, it has grown faster than any other settlement.

On the edge of the settlement’s industrial zone, there is a factory operated by a company called Soda-Club. The steel gate is painted blue and green to match the company’s curvy, modern-looking logo. A camera records the movements of anyone approaching the gate. The plant produces tabletop devices that add carbonation to flat water, like the ones used in many German kitchens. And for those who prefer a sweeter taste, there’s also syrup coming out of Maale Adumim.

Journalists are not welcome to visit Soda-Club. As marketing director Asaf Snear claims on the telephone, it’s to protect against industrial espionage.

But there’s another reason behind this aversion to media attention: Soda-Club’s products are at the center of a legal dispute with Germany that could significantly intensify the already heated debate over Israel’s settlement policy.

The Hamburg Finance Court must now decide whether Soda-Club devices made in Maale Adumim can be imported into the European Union duty-free, like all other Israeli industrial products. Brussels doesn’t want the company’s products to fall into this category because they are manufactured in Israeli settlements located in the occupied territories.

The real question revolves around whether Maale Adumim is part of Israel. The EU has not formally recognized Israel’s claim to Maale Adumim and other settlements. But, in practice, it has done little to stand in the way of Israeli settlement activities.

But that could now change. The Hamburg court has consulted with the European Court of Justice about obtaining a “preliminary ruling” that would settle the issue in a binding manner for all 27 EU member states. The decision is expected to come down in the coming months. If the court decides that a customs duty can be levied, it will be tantamount to handing down a decision against Israel’s settlement policy. The delicate question at hand is whether Germany and the EU should accept how Israel handles the occupied territories or if they should wield their sharpest sword—economic sanctions.

A ‘Highly Explosive Case’

In formal terms, the judges are merely being asked to reach a decision about €19,155.46. Brita GmbH , a German company, had imported Soda-Club water-carbonating machines and syrup from Maale Adumim. The company also labeled the products as being “Made in Israel” and claimed that they should consequently be exempt from customs duties.

But the main customs office in Hamburg’s harbor refused to allow this policy to continue. German customs agents contacted their Israeli counterparts to find out where exactly the products were made. When the response came, it said that they had been made in an area “under Israeli customs administration.” When the Hamburg agents wrote back, asking whether the products had actually been manufactured in Israeli settlements, they received no response. So the Germans slapped a duty on the products.

Then Brita filed a lawsuit against this decision. The matter quickly made its way to the European Commission, which wants to use the legal dispute over Soda-Club to make an example of Israel. In an internal memo, it has asked EU member states for “support.” The German Foreign Ministry is monitoring the “highly explosive case” with some interest—and a certain amount of sympathy.

The EU is already prepared for confrontation when it comes to Israel’s new nationalist, right-wing government. The 27 EU foreign ministers have temporarily put a planned diplomatic “upgrading” of relations with Israel on hold.

Now Europe hopes to use the customs dispute to apply additional pressure on Israel. The EU is the second-largest market for Israeli goods, after the United States. In 2008, for example, Israeli companies exported €12 billion ($16.8 billion) in goods to Europe. An estimated one-third of these goods are either fully or partially made in the occupied territories. Most apparently reach Europe duty-free, and an Israeli reimbursement fund for exports subject to duties was hardly used at all last year.

In response to EU pressure, Jerusalem signed an agreement in 2005 that requires every Israeli exporter to provide the customs agency with the location and postal code of the factory where any given product was produced. But when Israeli importers deliberately declare an incorrect place of origin, customs agents are powerless to react.

The situation has prompted the British government to urge the other 26 EU member states to agree on a procedure that would allow consumers to see exactly where Israeli goods come from. The proposal makes many Israelis uneasy. Could this mean, they worry, that European governments will soon be telling consumers: “Don’t buy from Jews”?

Given the country’s history, this is understandably a very sensitive issue in Germany. This makes it all the more surprising that the German government has been willing to openly comment on the Soda-Club affair. In response to a parliamentary question from the opposition Green Party, the government has said that there can be no exemption from customs duty for “goods from the occupied territories.”

Meanwhile, the Soda-Club company is doing exactly what many Israelis do when it comes to the Palestinian conflict—ignoring the problem. When asked for Soda-Club’s reaction to people criticizing it for manufacturing its products in a settlement, marketing director Snear says: “Soda-Club is an apolitical company.”

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

Bil’in under fire: peaceful resistance meets assailment

Jennifer Urgilez | MIFTAH

15 July 2009

The systematic arrest of Bil’in activists begins with the covert intrusion of Israeli soldiers into Bil’in at the stroke of midnight. From the west, soldiers cross the Separation Wall in military vehicles concealed under a blanket of darkness, each entering one by one in 10 minute intervals dropping off soldiers on the eastern side of the barrier. Five to 30 soldiers, depending on the size of the military vehicle, jump off and immediately transition into combat-mode, laying close to the ground, managing to maneuver across the land on their elbows, while signaling the army car to recede back into isolation within two to three minutes of ensuring no opposition in sight.

From here, the soldiers clandestinely begin their operation towards the village in silence, veiled by the obscurity of night. They slowly proceed without flashlights, some wearing military camouflage paint while others, black masks. The soldiers circumvent the most direct route into the heart of Bil’in, executing their mission through neglected back roads and fields, keeping a careful eye on the lookout for Palestinians, ready to drop and hide. Often, the activists stand on their rooftops, attempting to catch the soldiers in the act and forewarning each other of the troops’ coming. Upon receiving word, Abdullah Abu Rahmah and other activists immediately get in their cars and pursue the predators only to find no evidence of their nearing. Raids usually comprised of approximately 100 soldiers divided into groups of 20-30 men, each encircling the home of an accused stone-thrower at varying hours of the night, are ideal for operations in highly volatile regions, but not to detain a 16-year-old child taking part in a peaceful resistance movement.

Witnessing the injustices endured by the villagers of Bil’in as detonated tear gas bombs adorn the eastern side of the wall relates the oppression of occupation under which Palestinians are subjected. Even while its backdrop tells its tale, it was not until my interview of Abdullah Abu Rahmah, a local Bil’in villager and organizing member of the Bil’in Popular Committee Against the Wall, that this story of their subjugation to Israeli raids and arrests became known.

Cognizant of Israel’s tightening grip over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, largely as a response to the Aqsa Intifada, the villagers of Bil’in have shunned away from armed struggle, and instead, banded in uniform as a peaceful, nonviolent resistance to the Separation Wall. Setting the ground for the annexation of 49% of Bil’in territory into Israel, the Separation Wall, far from the 1949 Armistice Line, snakes well into the West Bank isolating 1,968 of Bil’in’s 4,040 dunums, or 486 of its 998 acres of land. The inception of the Bil’in Popular Committee Against the Wall in January of 2005 afforded activists ripe ground for the genesis of peaceful, Friday demonstrations reminiscent of Women in Black’s non-violent vigils in Israel demanding the “end of the occupation.” Emblematic of the overall catastrophe befallen Palestinians, activists from all walks of life—Palestinian, Israeli, and international—unite in the struggle against economic strangulation, occupation, and apartheid.

From resisting the uprooting of olive trees for the construction of the wall, to blockading the bulldozers from gaining entrance to Bil’in roads, to building a small edifice in the midst of dusk between the Modi’in Illit settlement bloc and the Separation Wall to secure access to their lands, the Bil’in Popular Committee Against the Wall refuses to allow the Israeli military to tiptoe around UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and the International Court of Justice July 2004 ruling declaring Israel’s Separation Wall and Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank in breach of international humanitarian law. Fighting the occupation two-dimensionally, through legal contestments and nonviolent public activism, the Bil’in Popular Committee Against the Wall has monitored and challenged the construction of the barrier every step of the way, cornering the government of Israel in its own courtroom.

In his judgment of September 4, 2007, President D. Beinisch of the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled that the government of Israel must implement an alternative route of the separation barrier on Bil’in land relinquishing both agricultural land in the Dolev riverbed and terrain seized for future development of the eastern region of the Mattityahu settlement. Irrespective of the Israeli High Court of Justice’s decree, the Israeli government has not rerouted the barrier, rather finalized its erection, depicting the already-suspected disconnect between the Israeli government’s judicial and military branches. Inferring from President Beinisch’s judgment and Israeli military operations, settlement growth, and not security motives, lay at the heart of Israeli expansionist policy.

Despite the brokering of the Oslo Accords in 1993 partitioning the West Bank into three distinct security enclaves—Area A under absolute Palestinian Authority (PA) control, Area B under PA civil control and Israeli security control, and Area C under complete Israeli military control—as Mr. Abu Rahmah denotes, “Nothing is Area A, everything is Area C.” Commencing on June 23, 2009, the Israeli military initiated its most recent string of raids into the village of Bil’in in spite of its Area A demarcations.

In the past three weeks, 15 youth activists have been detained—13 Palestinians, one Israeli, and one American—and scores injured at Friday’s peaceful demonstration with sound bombs, tear gas canisters, rubber-coated bullets, and a foul-smelling chemical spray, a clear use of excessive force against unarmed protesters. Hence, regardless of the detainee’s culpability, an entire military unit is not needed to arrest one individual. Judging from their actions, the Israeli military’s goal is psychological warfare—the brewing of helplessness and terror among Bil’in’s 1,800 residents aimed at freezing the resistance. Surrounding the house, destroying everything in their path, and even confiscating the detainee’s mobile phone at 3:00am can certainly break Palestinian morale. Luma, Mr. Abu Rahmah’s seven-year-old daughter, depicts the constant panic in which these children live. As of late, Luma awakes in the middle of the night, sometimes in screams and tears, calling out for her father. Luma’s sleepless nights are illustrative of the emotional and psychological despair of children in conflict.

Moreover, in their attempts to dismantle the movement, the Israeli military specifically targets the youth. For example, on June 23 and 25 of 2009, four children were detained ranging from 16-17 years of age, who during interrogation were forced to release the names of peace activists and information related to the movement’s organizing body. In response, the Bil’in Popular Committee Against the Wall, recognizing that the children do not have “experience” in these types of matters, gathered all the youths and with the assistance of a lawyer, “trained” the children on how to act during an Israeli interrogation, and further instructed them not to answer any questions—“I don’t want to speak. I have rights.”

If the systematic arrest and injuring of activists is the military’s methodological plan to demolish the movement, it fails to understand the struggle’s resilience—“If they want to arrest us all, they can. But our wives and children will continue the struggle,” admits Abdullah Abu Rahmah. On April 19, 2009, Bassem Abu Rahmah, a peaceful demonstrator, was shot in the chest with a tear gas bomb during one of Bil’in’s nonviolent, Friday protests. Thus, if neither the murder of Abu Rahmah, Abdullah’s extended family member, nor the 1,300 injuries and 60 arrests endured by activists has broken their spirits, virtually nothing can affect them now. As Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi pursued satyagraha—nonviolence—in his quest for Indian independence, the Bil’in Popular Committee Against the Wall too employs this philosophy in the pursuit of achieving Palestinian sovereignty and absolute freedom from Israeli occupation.

The picture is clear: concessions to Israeli “democratic” values and security modus operandi deprive Palestinians of their inalienable human rights. Our common humanity generates a moral duty to uphold the United Nations’ explicit benchmark for an occupying power’s conduct in its occupied territories. Despite big brother’s backing in the Security Council, Israel is not absolved of its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War—the Separation Wall and settlement activity in the West Bank indeed constitute war crimes. The international community needs to stop playing big-power politics and start dodging the aura of taboo accompanying espousal of the Palestinian plight—accountability is a must and exoneration, pure blasphemy.

Settlers set Saffa valley ablaze

Palestine Solidarity Project

13 July 2009

Monday, July 13, 2009, PSP received reports that farmland in Saffa area of Beit Ommar had been set on fire by settlers from neighboring Bat ‘Ayn. Initially, a PSP committee member and the mayor of Beit Ommar went into the valley, owned by Abu Jabber Soleiby, to assess the damage. In the afternoon, when the fire had still not be put out, international activists arrived with a large group of Beit Ommar residents along with media representatives. Fire trucks from Hebron initially could not reach the fire from the Beit Ommar/Saffa side and there were only two tools available to fight the fire, that was rapidly spreading across the valley threatening homes in Saffa due to unfavorable wind conditions.

The fire was put out by local residents and a Palestinian fire truck that arrived just as the fire had been brought under control. A local farmer with a tractor carting a water tank used hoses to control the fire before it breached onto adjacent farmland. It took Palestinians and small group of internationals roughly 30 minutes to control the fire as winds subsided briefly.

In Bat ‘Ayn, a small group of settlers were cheering, clapping and shouting in Hebrew as the fire spread to larger areas of the Palestinian land. Just below the top of the hill where settlement houses rest, two Israeli fire trucks sat idle to ensure the fire did not encroach on settlement land. This sight was a cruel reminder that Palestinian land in Saffa, and the larger Occupied Palestinian Territories, can be destroyed by settlers and/or Israeli military with little to no recourse, with the eventual goal being annexation of Palestinian land to expand on existing settlements like Bat ‘Ayn.

Palestinians organize a picnic protest near Susiya outpost

11 July 2009

On Saturday the 11th of July, solidarity activists of Ta’ayush and inhabitants of Susiya (South Hebron Hills) organized a picnic of resistance next to the outpost of the settlement of Susiya.

Activists from the ISM, Tayyoush and Palestinian residents gathered to non-violently protest the illegal outpost. The action was planned for 8am, but two buses with Tayyoush activists driving from Jerusalem were held for approximately two hours at a checkpoint.

At 10am, around 50 Palestinian, Israeli and international activists gathered near the outpost to have a picnic as a means to challenge ongoing illegal outposts on Palestinian-owned land.

On the way to the land, the activists were stopped by Israeli forces. They were able to walk around the soldiers and set up their picnic near the outpost. Israeli soldiers surrounded the picnic area and began to hassle the activists. They announced a ‘closed military zone’ and demanded that everyone leave the area.

Despite the fact that the land is Palestinian owned, and owners have a right to hold a picnic, Israeli soldiers began to physically push the picnickers away from the area. Upon inquiry of what the purpose of the ‘closed military zone’ order was, soldiers told activists that it was meant to ‘protect’ the settlers. Then Israeli occupation forces arrested three Tayyoush activists, using unnecessary violence against the activists.

The three arrested were released within hours due to lack of charges against them.

The Palestinian residents of Susiya face difficulties in living their lives, due to the violence from nearby Israeli settlers and soldiers. As a result of the maintanance of the illegal settlement of Susiya, (illegal in international law by the Geneva Conventions), Palestinians cannot graze their sheep or harvest their land. Israeli soldiers or settlers frequently harass residents and forbid them from going on their land with ‘closed military zone’ orders.