Global silence over 7000 Palestinian prisoners

(via Anthony Loewenstein)

Israel and Palestine: Free the Prisoners

Tikun Olam | 3 December 2011

Thanks to Michael Levin for creating this wonderful poster which illustrates the hypocrisy or at at least obliviousness of those campaigning for Gilad Shalit‘s release who neglect the fact that there are 7,000 Palestinian prisoners languishing in Israeli prisons as well. They all await their freedom. Please do your very best to circulate this image around the web and send it to your friends via e mail and social networking. I hope it can become as visible on the web as posters about Gilad Shalit circulated by his own Israeli supporters.

Among the newer additions to our The Await Their Freedom project is Abdullah Abu Rachmeh, a non-violent campaigner from Bilin, who organized the anti-Wall demonstrations there. An Israeli Kangaroo judge recently extended his jail sentence at the behest of the military prosecutor for no other reason than Israel finds the Bilin protests a nasty thorn in its side. This week a relative of Abdullah’s, Jawaher Abu Rachmeh, was murdered by IDF tear gas at a similar demonstration. Alas, she cannot even be part of our our campaign to free the prisoners because she never even made it to an Israeli prison. She was a victim of CS gas, one of the most lethal tear gas formulations that exists. It smothered her and caused her death, which the IDF is now shamefully trying to blame on an imagined case of asthma.

I regret to say that during the time we were creating this poster Prisoner X went from an incommunicado detainee held in Ayalon Prison to a murdered one.

It is time for Israel to free its prisoners and time for the Palestinians to release theirs. It’s also long past time to resolve this entire conflict with compromise on both sides that are just and fair.

Israëlische bulldozers denderen door

IPS/OneWorld.nl | Mel Frykberg | 26-12-2010

In Oost-Jeruzalem worden Palestijnen uit hun appartement gezet, op de Westelijke Jordaanoever walsen Israëlische bulldozers hun huizen plat. Palestijnen betalen een hoge tol voor het spaak lopen van de vredesgesprekken met Israël.

Alleen puin en verwrongen metaal is er over van de kopieerzaak die Muhammad Robin Alyyan (27) met zijn twee broers dreef. Samen met andere Palestijnse huizen in het bezette gebied Oost-Jeruzalem vernielden Israëlische veiligheidsdiensten onlangs hun bloeiende onderneming. Ze hadden geen bouwvergunning, luidt de officiële verklaring.

150.000 euro weg
Mensenrechtenorganisaties hebben aangetoond hoe moeilijk het voor Palestijnen is om deze papieren te krijgen. Zij vermoeden hierin opzet van Israël, dat tegelijkertijd illegale joodse nederzettingen steunt zodat demografisch een joodse meerderheid ontstaat. "Binnen een paar uur hebben we 150.000 euro verloren", vertelt ondernemer Alyyan. De Israëlische grenspolitie heeft hem geboeid, geslagen en pepperspray in het gezicht gespoten, zegt hij.



Uit huis gezet
De Israëlische autoriteiten vernielden de afgelopen weken meerdere gebouwen en zetten Palestijnen uit hun huizen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever.
In Oost-Jeruzalem betrokken joodse kolonisten onder politiebegeleiding twee appartementen, waarbij een Palestijnse familie uit een van de flats werd gezet. Ondertussen liggen er bouwaanvragen voor honderden nieuwe woningen in illegale joodse nederzettingen in Oost-Jeruzalem.

Twintig straaljagers
Het Amerikaanse Witte Huis bood Israël recent nog wapens en technologie in ruil voor een verlenging van drie maanden van de bouwstop, die afliep in september. De deal omvatte onder meer twintig straaljagers (F-35's) en mobiel luchtafweergeschut (Iron Dome) ter waarde van 205 miljoen dollar. Verder beloofden de VS dat zij hun veto zouden gebruiken in de VN-Veiligheidsraad als de Palestijnse Autoriteit (PA) bij de VN aandringt op een Palestijnse staat. Toch ging de Israëlische regering niet in op dit aanbod.

Staat in het nauw
Door deze ontwikkelingen raakt de Palestijnse Autoriteit nog meer in het nauw. "Wat de regering nu overweegt, is om hun zaak van een Palestijnse staat rechtstreeks bij de VN te bepleiten, buiten Israël en de VS om", vertelt hoogleraar Samir Awad van de Birzeit-universiteit bij Ramallah. Premier Salaam Fayyad werkt eraan de Palestijnse staat op te richten tegen augustus 2011.

Alternatieve weg
Hoogleraar Awad vervolgt: "Dat plan ligt al twee jaar op de tekentafel en omvat de oprichting van eigen instellingen met de groeiende steun van leden uit de internationale gemeenschap. De onderhandelingen met Israël leiden tot niets. De Palestijnse Autoriteit moet een alternatieve weg zoeken, die de VN erbij betrekt maar zich niet alleen tot deze instantie beperkt."

Human Rights Watch rapport 'Separate and Unequal'

Het 166 pagina's tellende rapport van Human Rights Watch 'Separate and Unequal - Israel’s Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories' (pdf, online) wordt totaal verzwegen in de Nederlandse media. Daar waar internationale media en persbureaus vrij uitgebreid reageren op het "unprecedented" rapport, heerst hier het stilzwijgen, en wordt het nieuws geregeerd door het het winterweer en het 'zeilmeisje'. Want dat lezen de mensen graag.

Israel/West Bank: Separate and Unequal
Under Discriminatory Policies, Settlers Flourish, Palestinians Suffer

Human Rights Watch | 19 december 2010

(Jerusalem) - Israeli policies in the West Bank harshly discriminate against Palestinian residents, depriving them of basic necessities while providing lavish amenities for Jewish settlements, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The report identifies discriminatory practices that have no legitimate security or other justification and calls on Israel, in addition to abiding by its international legal obligation to withdraw the settlements, to end these violations of Palestinians' rights.

The 166-page report, "Separate and Unequal: Israel's Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories," shows that Israel operates a two-tier system for the two populations of the West Bank in the large areas where it exercises exclusive control. The report is based on case studies comparing Israel's starkly different treatment of settlements and next-door Palestinian communities in these areas. It calls on the US and EU member states and on businesses with operations in settlement areas to avoid supporting Israeli settlement policies that are inherently discriminatory and that violate international law.

"Palestinians face systematic discrimination merely because of their race, ethnicity, and national origin, depriving them of electricity, water, schools, and access to roads, while nearby Jewish settlers enjoy all of these state-provided benefits," said Carroll Bogert, deputy executive director for external relations at Human Rights Watch. "While Israeli settlements flourish, Palestinians under Israeli control live in a time warp - not just separate, not just unequal, but sometimes even pushed off their lands and out of their homes."

By making their communities virtually uninhabitable, Israel's discriminatory policies have frequently had the effect of forcing residents to leave their communities, Human Rights Watch said. According to a June 2009 survey of households in "Area C," the area covering 60 percent of the West Bank that is under exclusive Israeli control, and East Jerusalem, which Israel unilaterally annexed, some 31 percent of Palestinian residents had been displaced since 2000.

Human Rights Watch looked at both Area C and East Jerusalem and found that the two-tier system in effect in both areas provides generous financial benefits and infrastructure support to promote life in Jewish settlements, while deliberately withholding basic services, punishing growth, and imposing harsh conditions on Palestinian communities. Such different treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, and national origin that is not narrowly tailored to legitimate goals violates the fundamental prohibition against discrimination under human rights law.

"Discrimination of the kind practiced daily in the West Bank should be beyond the pale for anyone."

Israeli policies control many aspects of the day-to-day life of Palestinians who live in Area C and East Jerusalem. Among the discriminatory burdens imposed on Palestinians that Human Rights Watch found are Israeli practices of expropriating land from Palestinians for settlements and their supporting infrastructure; blocking Palestinians from using roads and reaching agricultural lands; denying access to electricity and water; denying building permits for houses, schools, clinics, and infrastructure; and demolishing homes and even entire communities. Such measures have limited the expansion of Palestinian villages and imposed severe hardships on residents, including leaving them with limited access to medical care.

By contrast, Israeli policies promote and encourage Jewish settlements to expand in Area C and East Jerusalem, often using land and other resources that are effectively unavailable to Palestinians. The Israeli government grants numerous incentives to settlers, including funding for housing, education, and infrastructure, such as special roads. Those benefits have led to the consistent and rapid expansion of settlements, the population of which grew from approximately 241,500 inhabitants in 1992 to roughly 490,000 in 2010, including East Jerusalem.

"While Israeli policy makers are fighting for the ‘natural growth' of their illegal settlements, they're strangling historic Palestinian communities, forbidding families from expanding their homes, and making life unlivable," Bogert said. "The policies surrounding Israel's settlements are an affront to equality and a major obstacle to ordinary Palestinian life."

Palestinians face systematic discrimination merely because of their race, ethnicity, and national origin, depriving them of electricity, water, schools, and access to roads, while nearby Jewish settlers enjoy all of these state-provided benefits. While Israeli settlements flourish, Palestinians under Israeli control live in a time warp - not just separate, not just unequal, but sometimes even pushed off their lands and out of their homes.
Carroll Bogert, deputy executive director for external relations at Human Rights Watch

One of the Palestinian communities that Human Rights Watch examines in the report is Jubbet al-Dhib, a village with 160 residents southeast of Bethlehem that dates from 1929. The village is often accessible only by foot because its only connection to a paved road is a rough, 1.5 kilometer-long dirt track. Children from Jubbet al-Dhib must walk to schools in other villages several kilometers away because their own village has no school.

Jubbet al-Dhib lacks electricity despite numerous requests to be connected to the Israeli electric grid, which Israeli authorities have rejected. Israeli authorities also rejected an international donor-funded project that would have provided the village with solar-powered street lights. Any meat or milk in the village must be eaten the same day due to lack of refrigeration; residents often resort to eating preserved foods instead. Villagers depend for light on candles, kerosene lanterns, and, when they can afford to fill it with gasoline, a small generator.

Approximately 350 meters away is the Jewish community of Sde Bar, founded in 1997. It has a paved access road for its population of around 50 people and is connected to Jerusalem by a new, multi-million-dollar highway - the "Lieberman Road" - which bypasses Palestinian cities, towns, and villages, like Jubbet al-Dhib. Sde Bar operates a high school, but Jubbet al-Dhib students may not attend. Settlements are designated closed military areas that may be entered only with special military permits. Residents of Sde Bar have the amenities common to any Israeli town, such as refrigerators and electric lights, which Jubbet al-Dhib villagers can see from their homes at night.

"Palestinian children in areas under Israeli control are studying by candlelight while watching the electric lights in settlers' windows," Bogert said. "Pretending that depriving Palestinian kids of access to schools or water or electricity has something to do with security is absurd."

In most cases where Israel has acknowledged differential treatment of Palestinians - such as when it bars them from "settler-only" roads - it has asserted that the measures are necessary to protect Jewish settlers and other Israelis who are subject to periodic attacks by Palestinian armed groups. But no security or other legitimate rationale can explain the vast scale of differential treatment of Palestinians, such as permit denials that effectively prohibit Palestinians from building or repairing homes, schools, roads, and water tanks, Human Rights Watch said.

Moreover, in addressing security concerns, Israel often acts as if all Palestinians pose a security threat by virtue of their race, ethnicity, and national origin, rather than narrowly tailoring restrictions to specific individuals who are shown to pose a threat. The legal prohibition of discrimination prohibits such broad-brush restrictions.

"The world long ago discarded spurious arguments to justify treating one group of people differently from another merely because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin," Bogert said. "It's time for Israel to end its policies of discrimination and stop treating Palestinians under its control markedly worse than Jews in the same area."

Israel's highest court has ruled that certain measures against Palestinian citizens of Israel were illegal because they were discriminatory. However, Human Rights Watch is not aware that the courts have adjudicated whether any Israeli practice in the West Bank discriminated against Palestinians, although petitioners have raised such claims in a number of cases.

Human Rights Watch said that the blatantly discriminatory practices make it an urgent matter for donor countries to avoid contributing to or being complicit in the violations of international law caused by the settlements. These countries should take meaningful steps encourage the Israeli government to abide by its obligations, Human Rights Watch said.

Palestinians face systematic discrimination merely because of their race, ethnicity, and national origin, depriving them of electricity, water, schools, and access to roads, while nearby Jewish settlers enjoy all of these state-provided benefits.

Human Rights Watch reiterated its recommendation that the United States, which provides US$2.75 billion in aid to Israel annually, should suspend financing to Israel in an amount equivalent to the costs of Israel's spending in support of settlements, which a 2003 study estimated at $1.4 billion. Similarly, based on numerous reports that US tax-exempt organizations provide substantial contributions to support settlements, the report urges the US to verify that such tax-exemptions are consistent with US obligations to ensure respect for international law, including prohibitions against discrimination.

Human Rights Watch called on the EU, a primary export market for settlement products, to ensure that it does not provide incentives for settlement exports through preferential tariff treatment, and to identify cases where discrimination against Palestinians has contributed to the production of goods. For example, the report documents how crops exported from settlements using water from Israeli-drilled wells have dried up nearby Palestinian wells, limiting Palestinians' ability to cultivate their own lands and even their access to drinking water.

The report also describes cases in which businesses have contributed to or benefited directly from discrimination against Palestinians, for example through commercial activities on lands that were unlawfully confiscated from Palestinians without compensation for the benefit of settlers. These businesses also benefit from Israeli governmental subsidies, tax abatements, and discriminatory access to infrastructure, permits, and export channels. Human Rights Watch called on businesses to investigate, prevent and mitigate such violations, including ending any operations that cannot be separated from discriminatory Israeli practices.

"Discrimination of the kind practiced daily in the West Bank should be beyond the pale for anyone," Bogert said. "Foreign governments and businesses at risk of being tainted by Israel's unlawful practices should identify and end policies and actions that support them."

» Begeleidende videoclips

Nieuws » Israel deprives Palestinians in West Bank: report (Reuters)

Geen nieuws in Nederland:

(Belga) Mensenrechtenorganisatie Human Rights Watch (HRW) vindt dat de Verenigde Staten hun steun aan Israël zouden moeten verminderen met een bedrag ter hoogte van de subsidies die de Israëlische overheid uitgeeft aan de nederzettingen in de Palestijnse gebieden. Dat stelt HRW zondag in een nieuw rapport.

Volgens het 166 pagina's tellende document ondergaan de Palestijnse woonkernen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever grove discriminaties ten voordele van de Joodse kolonies. Die beschikken over betere basisvoorzieningen - zoals water en elektriciteit - dankzij de Israëlische steun. "De Verenigde Staten, die jaarlijks 2,75 miljard dollar steun toekennen aan Israël, zouden daarvan een som moeten aftrekken die overeenkomt met de Israëlische investeringskosten voor de nederzettingen, of zowat 1,4 miljard dollar volgens berekeningen uit een onderzoek" uit 2003, oordeelt HRW.

Daarenboven maakt de mensenrechtenorganisatie ook melding van "een groot aantal hulporganisaties" die belastingvrijstellingen krijgen voor "de grote bijdragen" die ze leveren aan de Joodse nederzettingen. De Amerikaanse autoriteiten zouden moeten nagaan of al die vrijstellingen wel overeenstemmen met de verplichtingen van de VS om het internationaal recht te doen naleven, stelt HRW nog. Israël bouwde sinds 1967 ruim 130 nederzettingen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever, samen goed voor meer dan 300.000 inwoners. De internationale gemeenschap bestempelt de nederzettingen als een inbreuk op het internationaal recht. (KNS)

Corporations found guilty at Russell Tribunal second session

The Electronic Intifada | Adri Nieuwhof | 1 December 2010

On 22 November a jury of international experts announced their verdict that compelling evidence shows corporate complicity in Israeli violations of international law. The verdict followed two full days of presentations in London at the second international session of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine from 20 to 21 November.

The session examined the role of corporations in Israel's violations of international law. It called experts and witnesses to present cases to the international panel of jurors. Although companies were invited to defend their actions, only Veolia Environnement, PFZW pension fund and security company G4S responded to the tribunal in writing.

Jurors at the London session of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine. (Kristian Buus)

The jurors included former French ambassador Stephane Hessel; Irish Nobel Laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire; South African professor John Dugard; South African politician Ronald Kasrils; English lawyer Michael Mansfield; Spanish emeritus judge Jose Antonio Martin Pallin; former US congresswoman Cynthia McKinney; and UK barrister Lord Anthony Gifford.

According to the jurors, the corporations' violations related to their supply of weapons and the construction and maintenance of illegal Israeli settlements and the Israel's wall in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The jury called for the mobilization of civil society to end the involvement of companies in Israeli human rights violations (Public Statement of the Russell Tribunal [PDF]).

Seven corporations were named by the jury for being complicit in Israeli violations. They include:

• The British-Danish firm G4S, which supplies equipment used at Israeli checkpoints in the occupied West Bank and Israeli prisons.
• Elbit Systems, a leading Israeli company which collaborates closely with the Israeli military.
• US-based Caterpillar, which supplies the Israeli military with modified D9 bulldozers used to demolish Palestinian homes.
• Cement Roadstone Holdings, an Irish multinational corporation, which purchased 25 percent of the Israeli Mashav Initiative and Development Ltd. Israeli Mashav Initiative and Development Ltd., owns Nesher Israel Cement Enterprises Ltd., which is Israel's sole cement producer, supplying 75-90 percent of all the cement in Israel and the occupied West Bank.
• Dexia, a Franco-Belgian corporation that finances Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank via its subsidiary Dexia Israel Public Finance Ltd.
• Veolia Transport, a French corporation is involved in the construction of the Jerusalem light rail which connects Israel's illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank with annexed East Jerusalem. Veolia is due to operate the light rail and also operates bus services to illegal Israeli settlements.
• Carmel Agrexco, an Israeli corporation that exports agricultural produce including oranges, olives, and avocados from the illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

During the Tribunal, Dutch divestment activist Saskia Muller presented the case of the Dutch pension fund Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn (PFZW). The fund holds investments in more than ten international companies involved in Israel's violations of international law, and one Israeli supermarket chain which provides services to illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. In its six-page letter to the Russell Tribunal dated 12 November, the PFZW board wrote that it is "deeply concerned about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, and the consequential long time occupation of the Palestinian territories by Israel. It is further concerned about ongoing violations of international law in this context, and about possible complicity in such violations by companies that are active in Israel and the occupied territories."

Representatives of the US peace group Codepink presented the case against Ahava cosmetics to the Russell Tribunal jury. And while the jury was presenting its conclusions on 22 November, the entrance to the Ahava store in London was blocked by activists who chained themselves to a concrete-filled oil barrel. This was the fifth protest by activists against Ahava, which manufactures Dead Sea products in the illegal settlement of Mitzpe Shalem.

At the press conference, juror John Dugard, who recently served as the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, stressed that when the anti-apartheid movement pressured corporations to disinvest from apartheid South Africa, it was still debated whether apartheid constituted a crime against humanity. Corporations therefore argued that doing business with South Africa was not illegal.

Dugard added that the situation is very different with respect to Israel: "We are dealing with a criminal enterprise on the part of Israel. Under criminal and international law and in many cases under national legal systems, there is an obligation on the part of states to redress such illegality, but if states do not take action, there is also responsibility on the part of corporations and civil society to redress these wrongs."

Ronald Kasrils, former South African minister, highlighted how mobilization of popular support by the anti-apartheid movement helped to isolate South Africa and overthrow the apartheid regime. At that time, the western countries were the pillars of support for apartheid South Africa, as is the case with Israel today. Kasrils said that the mobilization was not "anti-people, it was anti-system."

Kasrils added that in South Africa the "particular groundswell internationally would even get through to the minority white people in South Africa. As we see now this [boycott, divestment, sanctions (BDS)] call getting through to public opinion in Israel, among Jews in Israel and around the world." Kasrils emphasized that the importance of BDS can not be "underestimated" and underlined the important role of civil society in pressuring governments to end Israeli impunity and criminal activity.

Juror Michael Mansfield, President of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, stated that "the jury was horrified to note that the Israeli government is currently considering making protest and objection along these lines a criminal offense." In its final statement, the jury called "on states to protect the rights of all those who initiate or take such lawful BDS actions."

Meanwhile, the Palestinian BDS National committee (BNC) endorsed the outcome of the Russell Tribunal in London. In a statement the BNC commented that "the tribunal spoke with a strong, clear and moral voice" ("BNC endorses findings of London session of Russell Tribunal on Palestine ...," 30 November 2010).

The tribunal has provided not only important knowledge, but also authoritative encouragement to solidarity groups, social movements, trade unions, political parties and concerned citizens to utilize BDS to hold Israel and its supporters to account. The next Russell Tribunal on Palestine will be held in South Africa, and will consider the applicability of the crime of apartheid in Israel.

Adri Nieuwhof is a consultant and human rights advocate based in Switzerland. Nieuwhof gave a presentation at the Russell Tribunal as the lead expert on public contracts regulations and the French multinational, Veolia, and its business practices in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Related Links
Russell Tribunal on Palestine

BDS update: Anti-apartheid Hagues

Despite the stranglehold Israel lobbies have on Euro-parliaments and politicians, there have been some surprisingly plucky official moves to protest illegal Israeli settlements recently, notes Eric Walberg

Israeli mayoral visits to Spain and the Netherlands were nixed in September because the delegation included leaders of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. The visit of thirty Israeli mayors to the Netherlands was organised by the Israeli branch of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) after the Spanish municipal organisation cancelled a proposed visit in light of the Israeli attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla.

The Dutch conference was to be hosted by the Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG), located in The Hague. The aim of the trip was purportedly to learn more about the Dutch system of local, regional and national authorities, though such official visits are really an Israeli ploy to provide de facto recognition of illegal settlements.

The JDC and the Union of Local Authorities in Israel tried to arrange the tour through the embassy of the Netherlands in Tel Aviv, including mayors of West Bank settlements Beit Aryeh, Har Adar, Kiryat Arba, Oranit, Beit El, Efrat and Elkana, but when informed, VNG refused to host the delegation as long as the occupation mayors were part of it. "When they asked for the list we realised we had run aground," said head of the Council of Efrat Oded Revivi, though the JDC has facilitated similar trips to Denmark, France and China.

The Palestinian Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) National Committee emphasised that there are more than 150 settlements in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, housing 475,000 settlers on more than forty per cent of the West Bank. After VNG’s decision to call off the visit, Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Verhagen came under fire from Dutch right-wing parliamentarians. Geert Wilders, leader of Party for Freedom, demanded that Verhagen force VNG to proceed with the planned visit. Pro-Israeli Verhagen surprised parliament by supporting VNG, admitting that Israeli settlements are in violation of international law.

VNG did the same in the 1990s, urging Dutch cities to support the South African anti-apartheid movement when the national government was reluctant to. Amsterdam declared itself an "anti-apartheid city", boycotting South Africa and hosting the ANC representative for the Netherlands. The VNG’s principled position today is once again paving the way for otherwise timid politicians like Verhagen to stand up to Israeli apartheid.

***

Israel’s accession to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in May was a coup for the country, in face of its 2008 invasion of Gaza and continued settlement activity. This entry in the European Union via the backdoor was quickly used by Israel to try to try to secure de facto recognition of Jerusalem its new capital by hosting an OECD tourism conference in West Jerusalem in October.

However, this backfired as 11 countries boycotted the High Level Roundtable rather than provide the long-sought recognition, including Norway, Canada, Ireland, the UK, Sweden, Iceland, Turkey and South Africa. Other countries sent only low-level delegations: Greece a Tel-Aviv staffer from the Greek information office and Denmark a statistician. The Czech Republic was the only EU country to send a political representation. The Swedish delegation to the OECD indicated that their boycott of the conference was in conformity to EU policy on the status of Jerusalem.

The tipping point was when Israeli Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov boasted to the press that the meeting -- the first OECD meeting hosted by Israel since it became a member -- was proof that OECD members recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital. In a strongly worded letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, OECD General Secretary Angel Gurria called the comments "factually incorrect and quite unacceptable".

Even the drivers at the ill-fated Roundtable, hired to shepherd delegates around the Holy Sites, raised a furor, as they turned out to be from the extremist Mateh Binyamin Regional Council, which has built and has jurisdiction over 42 West Bank settlements.

Critics of Israeli membership in the OECD assert that Israel does not meet the required economic and human rights standards for membership, and that OECD members who allowed Israel to join did so in violation of their own commitments to the Geneva Conventions. Israeli economic data submitted to the OECD brazenly includes information relating to illegal Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory, amounting to an implicit OECD endorsement of the Israeli occupation.

The BDS National Committee described the Roundtable boycott as "clear condemnation of Israel’s continued ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem". BDS coordinator Hind Awwad said, "That countries like Canada and the UK, which are traditionally staunch defenders of Israeli apartheid, colonialism and occupation, have refused to attend the conference is a significant development."

The scandal confirms that it is impossible to deal with Israel without abetting its occupation of Palestinian territories and its daily violations of human rights and international law, forcing even the most pro-Israel countries in the West to join the BDS campaign, despite their official condemnation of it.

***

It is not just the Israeli government that is guilty, but all Israeli organisations, especially universities, which collaborate with the occupation through research. This prompted 200 academics from 14 South African universities last month to support University of Johannesburg’s decision to end collaboration with Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. "As academics we acknowledge that all of our scholarly work takes place within larger social contexts -- particularly in institutions committed to social transformation. South African institutions are under an obligation to revisit relationships forged during the apartheid era with other institutions that turned a blind eye to racial oppression in the name of 'purely scholarly’ or 'scientific’ work."

South Africa’s Human Sciences Research Council, in a response to an investigation commissioned by the South African government in 2009, issued a report confirming that the everyday structural racism and oppression imposed by Israel constitutes a regime of apartheid and settler colonialism similar to the one that shaped lives in South Africa.

***

Despite the strong Friends of Israel lobby in all three British political parties and the fragile UK coalition government, on 3 November, another Hague caught Europe off-guard, this time British Foreign William Hague, who defied official Israel and met with Palestinian and Israeli anti-Wall activists in Bitunia south of Ramallah, overlooking Ofer prison, where many activists are in jail.

"When negotiations seem like an eternally unfulfilled promise due to Israel’s unwillingness to reach a fair solution, popular resistance to the Occupation is the sole remaining possible alternative for the Palestinians to achieve their rights and avoid armed struggle," Hague encouraged the activists, promising them the support of the British government in their struggle.

***

Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/

)bron: Uruknet)

NOS noemt misdaad "incident"

Verzwijgen is een van de meest gebruikte vormen van propaganda in onze zogeheten vrije "kwaliteitspers". Dat kun je complicity by silence noemen, maar het gaat verder dan dat: er wordt immers een bewuste keuze gemaakt om bepaalde informatie voor het publiek te verzwijgen. Andere bekende propagandatechnieken zijn het negeren van (historische) context, en 'creatief taalgebruik', waarin eufemismen worden gebruikt om ongewenste feiten te verdoezelen. Dat onze staatsomroep de NOS veelzijdig bedreven is, kan opgemaakt worden uit het volgende korte bericht:

Geen celstraf voor incident in Gaza

Toegevoegd: zondag 21 nov 2010, 12:02

In Israël hebben twee militairen een voorwaardelijke celstraf gekregen, omdat ze een jongen van 9 bagage lieten openen waarin explosieven hadden kunnen zitten. Ook zijn ze door een militair tribunaal gedegradeerd.

Het incident speelde zich een kleine twee jaar geleden af in Gaza-stad tijdens de korte oorlog tussen Israël en de Palestijnse Hamasbeweging.

Lichte straf
De militairen lieten de 9-jarige jongen bagage van inwoners van Gaza-stad openen op zoek naar explosieven. De rechter vond dat de twee zijn leven in gevaar hebben gebracht.

Ze kregen een een relatief lichte straf, omdat ze volgens de rechter in moeilijke omstandigheden moesten werken  en lang niet hadden geslapen.

Het bericht wordt opgeleukt met een mooie ansichtkaartfoto van Gaza stad, alsof het een pittoreske toeristenbestemming is.



"Het incident"
"Het incident" dat de NOS noemt, betreft helemaal geen incident, maar een misdaad. Van Dale stelt dat een incident een "onvoorziene gebeurtenis" is, of een "storend voorval". Het gebruik van (het leven van) een kind om Israëlische militairen te beschermen was geenzins een "incident" omdat het kind bewust, onder schot gehouden, werd ingezet. Ook suggereert het woord "incident" dat het gaat om iets dat zich bij toeval voordeed, zoals een natuurverschijnsel als blikseminslag of aardbeving. Waarvoor Israël dus eigenlijk niet verantwoordelijk is.

"een jongen van 9"
Een kind dus. Maar dat woord komt in het bericht niet voor. Ook een tweede keer wordt een "9-jarige jongen" gebruikt.

"de korte oorlog tussen Israël en de Palestijnse Hamasbeweging"
Wat is kort? Voor de Gazanen moet het een eeuwigheid zijn geweest. Het gebruik van het woord "oorlog" suggereert dat twee strijdende, min of meer gelijkwaardige partijen elkaar op een slagveld troffen. Dat is een grove misvorming van de werkelijkheid. Israël viel met een enorme militaire macht aan, en richtte een bloedbad aan onder grotendeels burgers, die door de agressor waren opgesloten in de grootste openluchtgevangenis ter wereld, en dus niet konden vluchten. Het was prijsschieten. Een bloedbad aanrichten in een gevangenis heet niet "oorlog". De NOS herhaalt alleen de Israëlische propaganda, en elke context, zoals de Israëlische blokkade, ontbreekt.



"De rechter vond dat de twee zijn leven in gevaar hebben gebracht"
Met "de rechter vond" suggereert de NOS dat we hier te maken hebben met een mening. Dat "de twee zijn leven in gevaar hebben gebracht" is (slechts) een mening van een individu, die aangevochten of betwijfeld kan worden. Of het leven van het kind wérkelijk in gevaar was, is eigenlijk nog maar de vraag, suggereert de NOS. Maar wanneer een rechter een oordeel velt, betreft dat geenzins een mening, maar het is een vonnis, een veroordeling, aan de hand van de wet. De bedoeling is hier, wederom, om "het incident" - de bewezen en veroordeelde misdaad - te verzachten.

"Ze kregen een een relatief lichte straf"
Hier doet het woord "relatief" wonderen. Want "relatief" suggereert hier dat de, laten we wel wezen, extreem lichte straf voor een abjecte misdaad, volgens de NOS 'best wel een tikje aan de lichte kant' is.

"omdat ze (...) in moeilijke omstandigheden moesten werken en lang niet hadden geslapen."
Je kunt stellen dat het een goede zaak van de NOS is om de "moeilijke omstandigheden" waarin de soldaten opereerden te noemen. Maar wanneer je dat tegenover het zwijgen over de "moeilijke omstandigheden" in Gaza en zeker die van het jongetje zelf zet, wordt het toch weer propaganda.



Menselijk schild

Niet tussen aanhalingstekens want het betreft hier een van de grote omissies in het bericht van de NOS. Het ANP blijkt het beter te doen, en kopt met: Militairen vrijuit na gebruik kind als schild. Ook heeft het ANP niet over "de oorlog", maar over "de aanvallen".

De rechter verklaarde de twee op 3 oktober schuldig omdat ze "hun bevoegdheden te buiten gingen en in zo'n ernstige mate dat ze mensenlevens in gevaar brachten". Het Israëlische hooggerechtshof betitelde eerder dergelijke acties als "het gebruiken van een menselijk schild" en heeft ze verboden.

Maar wanneer het om de "menselijke schilden" van Hamas gaat wordt dat bij de NOS niet verzwegen. Hoewel het dan wel 'fatsoenlijk' wordt ingepakt als een citaat van het Israëlische leger. Citaten waarmee de NOS bijna de hele "oorlog" mee heeft verslagen, via Sander van Hoorn die aan de grens van Gaza stond, met zijn persoonlijke persofficier van het Israëlische leger.

Dankzij de NOS (Jeugdjournaal) leren onze kinderen ook dat diefstal van land geen misdaad is, maar dat het een "ruzie" betreft over "een stuk land", dat "bij Israël" ligt. En van wie dat stuk land nu eigenlijk is, dat laat de NOS in het ongewisse.

The Guardian geeft het slachtoffer, Majeh Rabah, een naam, een gezicht en een stem.

Wim Kortenoeven van Wilders

Wim Kortenoeven, Kamerlid van de PVV, jarenlang betaalde propagandist van Israel, die bewust loog.

Stan van Houcke | 21 november 2010

Met betrekking tot W.R.F. Kortenoeven: dit schreef het CIDI na de - volgens Amnesty en Human Rights Watch - Israelische schendingen van de mensenrechten en het oorlogsrecht in 2006 in Libanon:

'Van pro naar anti; Historische sympathie voor Israel in Nederland kalft af...Wim Kortenoeven vervangt Ronny Naftaniel, die de directeur is van het CIDI en anders altijd het woord voert. Maar die is met vakantie. Nu zit hij op Naftaniels kamer - op een bovenverdieping in de Haagse binnenstad - en probeert ervan te maken wat ervan te maken valt.Hij stuurt de hele week al e-mails terug naar de mensen die het CIDI gemaild hebben. Hij verwijst hen naar een Libanese website, http://www.libanoscopie.com/, waarin wordt gezegd dat Hezbollah de aanval van Israel heeft uitgelokt door zelf een raket op het dak van het flatgebouw te plaatsen. En dat er eerst invalide kinderen naar dat flatgebouw waren gebracht. "Ik kan niet nagaan of dat waar is", zegt hij. "Maar ik vind dat mensen dit moeten weten."Hij verwijst ook naar http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/, een website waarop foto's van de puinhoop na de aanval met elkaar worden vergeleken. Foto's van een reddingswerker met een dood meisje, steeds op een andere plek en op een ander tijdstip, in andere kleren soms en tussen andere mensen. Doesn't Hezbollah have anyone else the media can photograph, staat erbij. Soms helpen die e-mails, zegt Wim Kortenoeven.' Zie: http://www.cidi.nl/media/2006/nrc.050806.html



Ik citeer andermaal: "Ik kan niet nagaan of dat waar is... soms helpen die e-mails." Hier wordt openlijk toegegeven dat W.R.F. Kortenoeven die als de Midden-Oosten specialist en researcher van het CIDI, in samenwerking met u een college geeft, met materiaal die hij niet op zijn juistheid kon controleren propaganda bedreef, en daarmee oorlogsmisdaden verdoezelde.Ik merk tevens op dat het CIDI zich nooit publiekelijk distantieert van de grootschalige Israelische schendingen van het internationaal recht en van talloze VN- resoluties. Integendeel zelfs.

Tot zover Kortenoeven, tegenwoordig als volksvertegenwoordiger in de Tweede Kamer voor de PVV. Terwijl deze door zionisten betaalde propagandist zijn propaganda verspreidde werd naderhand duidelijk wat er werkelijk gebeurde:

Amnesty International details Israeli war crimes in Lebanon
By Peter Symonds 25 August 2006

An Amnesty International (AI) report published on Tuesday provides a chilling account of the death and destruction inflicted on the civilian population of Lebanon by the Israeli military during its month-long, US-backed offensive. Entitled "Deliberate destruction or 'collateral damage'? Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure", the document demonstrates that the Israeli government is directly responsible for numerous war crimes against the Lebanese people.

AI executive deputy secretary general Kate Gilmore dismissed as "manifestly wrong" Israel's claims that its attacks were legitimate and legal. "Many of the violations identified in our report are war crimes, including indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks. The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of power and water plants, as well as the transport infrastructure vital for food and other humanitarian relief, was deliberate and an integral part of a military strategy," she told the press.

Gilmore also took issue with Israeli assertions that it had simply targetted Hezbollah positions and support facilities, blaming civilian deaths on Hezbollah's use of civilians as a "human shield". "The pattern, scope and scale of the attacks makes Israel's claim that this was 'collateral damage', simply not credible," she said.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/aug2006/amne-a25.shtm

We hebben dus hier te maken met een schurk, ik heb er geen ander woord voor, iemand die oorlogsmisdaden probeert goed te praten. Mijn vraag is nu: hoe betrouwbaar is deze propagandist als volksvertegenwoordiger? Hij kan over geheime informatie beschikken die hij gezien zijn loyaliteit aan de schurkenstaat Israel kan doorspelen. Wordt het geen tijd dat de commerciele massamedia deze figuur eens goed doorlichten?

Wait- we are giving who?? 20 F-35 stealth attack jets?? for what??

In onze nieuwsmedia lezen we niets over Obama's "omkoping" van Israël, voor een miezerige settlement freeze van 3 maanden, laat staan dat de wereld al decennialang heeft geakkoordeerd dat Israël zich terug moet trekken uit de bezette gebieden en de nederzettingen moeten verdwijnen. Bij ons heet het simpelweg "vredesoverleg", wanneer een dief onderhandelt met zijn slachtoffer over de gestolen waren.

MondoWeiss | By Virginia Tilley | November 20, 2010

With 25 years of experience under my belt analysing the Middle East conflict, and as a close observer of US foreign policy with a pragmatic attitude toward its realist exigencies, I have never seen anything as destructive, humiliating and ruinously conceived as the “incentive” package now being offered by the US to Israel for a 3-month settlement freeze. It is our country’s foreign policy nadir: a deal is so damaging to US interests that it is hard to find words for it. What can be said plainly is that US citizens – yes, even those jaded, tired, embittered, disillusioned folks who have watched this stuff for too long – have to rise up and move fast to stop this, in the name of our country’s future.



Let us briefly consider just what’s being proposed here. Israel has been asked (asked!) to freeze illegal settlement construction in the West Bank for a lousy three months in the interests of the so-called peace process.

This brief hiatus is purely cosmetic. Jewish settlements in this occupied territory have been steadily and deliberately eradicating taking over East Jerusalem and the West Bank for over 40 years. The whole full-bore settlement construction programme makes open nonsense of partition now, as well as the putative “peace process”, by “eating the pizza”. But Israel has refused even a short-term freeze. And the US, egg all over its face, is being reduced to bribing the Israelis with a mind-boggling package of incentives – $3 BILLION in military hardware, equivalent to Israel’s annual automatic US package – just for three months of a partial freeze on construction, after which construction will continue unabated.

Israel’s refusal to freeze settlements even temporarily should surprise no one: the enigma is rather that anyone still finds that refusal confusing. Israel’s strategy for annexing the West Bank is recorded in Israeli government maps and settlement Master Plans dating back decades. For reasons too complicated to summarise here, deep divisions in Israeli society and politics make changing that policy effectively impossible at this late hour, as it is entrenched in Israeli doctrine, politics, policy and practice at levels so deep that the State’s very survival is implicated in it. The entire Israeli government, from the Agriculture Ministry to the World Zionist Organisation, is fully involved in and committed to building the West Bank settlements. But no one in the White House seems to have told President Obama this. He has already been deeply humiliated in world eyes when he insisted that Israel freeze settlement construction and Israel (predictably) gave him the diplomatic finger. Ever since that debacle, he has looked like a tin man in Middle East politics. Many wondered – first when, then whether – the US might find some spine with Israel over a situation so obviously damaging to the country’s image and interests. But Obama’s language about the settlements lately has been mealy stuff about “unhelpful” and “both sides”. As billions of tax dollars sink into the Afghan morass and US soldiers are shot down in ditches, the US superpower can’t get Israel to do diddly to help out and isn’t willing even to try. On the contrary, the US is committed to helping Israel do the opposite of what it urgently needs and what its own rhetoric asks for.

Normally, of course, the US would just strong-arm the Palestinians. But the Palestinian Authority is down to its last thong of dignity and even this is ready to snap. It can’t participate in a peace process that’s so openly idiotic. Politically, and despite the partial economic benefits that appointed Prime Minister Fayyad has brought to a narrow sector of Palestinian society in the West Bank, the PA is on the brink of implosion. Looking too much like a stringed puppet dancing in an empty diplomatic theatre, “negotiating” for a territory vanishing day by day, Mr. Abbas confronts a level of shame that even hard-core PA cronies have to consider soberly. For years, he has cultivated the image of a much-abused Palestinian patriot on the brink of resignation, enduring endless insults from Israel and the US only to do his best by the Palestinian people. But that always dubious story is crumbling to reveal a sordid truth: whatever its individual members’ intentions, the PA is effectively a cluster of native clients sucking up funds and graces from enemy patrons who are happy to pay a self-serving indigenous elite to keep the native masses quiet. This classic colonial deal can be sustained only as long as the Palestinian people as a whole are not smacked in the face with it.

But why does the US care about sustaining this farce? To understand the outlandish military deal now being offered, we have to recognise the whole Middle East “peace process” as a survival pact. The US needs the PA to help keep alive the whole fake story about the PA – Oslo’s “Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority”, supposedly “interim” to full Palestinian independence but actually “interim” to Israel’s final victory – to achieve what it needs to do in Afghanistan. Israel still needs the PA, too, because otherwise Israel will be identified for what it is: an Apartheid state. The Ramallah-PA elite relies on the coloniser’s needs -- indirect rule of the natives – for its very existence. So everyone needs the game a little longer and, if all goes right, it will work out for all of them. The US and Israel assume that when Israel’s eastern border (marked by the Wall plus the Jordan Valley) is finally consolidated, the PA will serve as the “self-government authority” – language straight out of the South African Bantustans, not incidentally – that will keep the natives quiet in assigned “reserves” which may or may not be called a state. The Ramallah PA hopes to land on its feet: a native elite that can enrich itself on sweetheart deals with Israel that it will cultivate by ensuring “security”. Counting on this pact, Israel need contemplate no true change to settlement policy because, token protests aside, the PA will take whatever it can get. No one in the US government really cares where Israel decides to put its borders, so the US government will not insist on any change either. The only concern is keeping up appearances. The short-sightedness of this plan is obvious and sad: it can’t but culminate in Palestinian revolt, Israeli violence, security dilemmas throughout the region and periodic regional upheavals. But then, colonists always assume that colonialism will win out somehow.



Even sadder is that the US actually has immense power in this situation and need do very little to deploy it. All it has to do to alter the entire power balance in the Middle East – in the interest of its own desperate situation in Afghanistan and its credibility as a world power – is sit back and abstain in the UN, leaving Israel to face the monumental international opprobrium that is brewing around its multitudinous human rights violations and sins against international security. Instead, the US is now doing the opposite: promising openly to protect Israel from any such blame, however legitimate, and handing over twenty – TWENTY – F35 stealth attack jets, the latest in US military stealth equipment, as well as unnamed satellite intelligence capacity and other cutting-edge technology. And for what? A 3-month token freeze that will end with Israel bouncing back to exactly the same strategy as before, putting the US back in the same impossible situation by February 2011.

Of course, it’s unlikely that the US is really doing this. Probably the deal was in the works anyway – maybe to capacitate Israel to strike Iran, in reality or as a threat – and some pro-Israel fanatic in the White House thought it might make slightly better sense to the world if cast as a sweetener to Israel regarding the always-fictive “peace process”. The opposite is true: attaching this colossal military transfer to a 3-month diplomatic nod from Israel makes the US look like a giant on its knees to a local mafia thug, handing over the family jewels (in both senses?) to cover the next short-term protection-racket instalment. It announces to the world that the US has no foreign policy leverage whatever and is reduced to giving away its best goods for the slightest temporary cooperation by a rude ally that claims openly to control its foreign policy. It also announces to the world that we are ready to destabilise the entire planet to plead for the most immaterial of Israel’s diplomatic graces. It indicates an infatuation with Israel so craven as to betray the foundations of our country’s essential interests – to remain a credible power in world affairs. (And let’s not even go into how deeply it abuses and insults the millions of desperate jobless Americans for whom $3 billion in mortgage assistance, education and job training could make all the difference – and whose children are being killed or maimed in Afghanistan as this disgusting deal goes forward to make their lot worse.)

I don’t usually speak like this, but this is a matter for US patriots. I don’t mean tea-party dolts, I mean liberal principled citizens people who – even grown cynical after decades of disappointments and disillusionments – still in their hearts really care about the US and what we always believed it was founded to become. And I include people who don’t much care one way or the other about the Middle East. For, although it will indeed be ruinous for the Middle East, and catastrophic for US relations with the Middle East, this crisis isn’t only about the Middle East. We cannot possibly hand over vast first-strike armaments at the tune of $3 billion on the utterly shaming rationale of coaxing an arrogant local power into a minor diplomatic gesture with a dinky 90-day limit. Doing so would mark the end of the US as any kind of sensible player in the world.

Virginia Tilley is a professor of political science and international relations and author of The One-State Solution. She lives in Cape Town and can be reached at vtilley@mweb.co.za. Thanks to John Haines for circulating her piece first.

With settlement deal, U.S. will be rewarding Israel's bad behavior

Daniel Kurtzer, voormalig Amerikaans ambassadeur van Israël en Egypte, meent dat het omkopen van Israël door de VS voor beide partijen een slechte zaak is.

The Washington Post | by Daniel Kurtzer | November 21, 2010

It was only a little over a year and a half ago that the Obama administration demanded a freeze on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, including even the "natural growth" of existing settlements. At the time, the administration called settlement activity "illegitimate" and appeared ready to go to the mat with Israel to show just how strongly the United States believed that settlements impede peace.

But now, the administration says it is prepared to pay off Israel to freeze only some of its settlement activity, and only temporarily. For the first time in memory, the United States is poised to reward Israel for its bad behavior.

Here's the offer that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is reported to have put on the table recently: The United States will provide a package of advanced weaponry and military assistance to Israel totaling several billion dollars, all in return for an Israeli commitment to freeze settlement construction for just three months, excluding construction in Jerusalem. During this period, the United States hopes Israel and the Palestinian Authority will negotiate an agreement on the final borders of a future Palestinian state. The Israeli cabinet is weighing the offer, having demanded a letter from Washington confirming the terms.



This is a very bad idea. And while Washington will almost certainly come to regret bribing Israel, Israel may regret receiving such a bribe even more.

Previously, U.S. opposition to settlements resulted in penalties, not rewards, for continued construction. Washington deducted from its loan guarantees to Israel an amount equivalent, dollar for dollar, to the money that Israel spent in the occupied territories. While it's true that the United States has turned a blind eye to indirect U.S. subsidies for Israeli activities in the territories - such as tax deductions for American organizations that fund settlements - the deal now being offered to Israel is of a totally different magnitude. If it goes forward, it will be the first direct benefit that the United States has provided Israel for settlement activities that we have opposed for more than 40 years.

It is not clear that Washington has thought through the implications. Will the United States similarly reward Palestinians for stopping their own bad behavior? Will Washington pay them to, say, halt the incitement against Israel and Jews in their public media and some educational materials - something that shouldn't have been going on in the first place?

Will the rewards for Israel be automatically renewable? Meaning, if Israel is willing to continue the settlement freeze after three months, will another set of rewards be the price for that?

And what about enforcement? Will the United States demand its money back if it learns about construction during the freeze, even if that construction was not authorized by the Israeli government?

The list of problems is so long that it would not be surprising if the administration were already experiencing buyer's remorse. But the arrangement has an even more serious long-term implication, one that should worry Israel profoundly.

If it goes through, this deal will shake the foundation of the U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership. Since the early 1980s, the two countries have cooperated closely on assessing Israeli security, and Washington has promised to ensure Israel's "qualitative military edge" over any combination of potential Arab adversaries.

This commitment has been insulated from the vicissitudes of politics and diplomacy. Whatever the state of U.S.-Israeli relations or the peace process, America's commitment to Israel's security has been manifest. Not so, if this deal materializes. By subjecting Israel's defense needs to the political demands of an American administration, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has done something quite dangerous for Israel - he has made those needs contingent, negotiable, optional. Israel's security requirements are now merely a bargaining chip with which to negotiate what Jerusalem will or will not do to advance the peace process.

Today, the United States has "purchased" a short-term settlements freeze; what will be for sale tomorrow? For that matter, how seriously should our defense planners and congressional budget watchers take Israel's arguments about its security needs when it is prepared to market different elements of its policy for another squadron of advanced aircraft? Does anyone really believe that there is a substantive connection between a three-month settlement freeze and Israel's professed need for more airplanes?

These short-sighted tactics will lead both the United States and Israel into a long-term bind. Washington will be left fending off a landslide of demands from others who hope to be rewarded for their bad behavior, to be paid for stopping what they should never have been doing. Israel, meanwhile, will be left struggling to explain how precious its settlements really are if a payoff - albeit a high one - is enough to see them frozen.

And both countries will need a new rationale for the exceedingly steep price of what Israel calls its security requirements, but which will now look more like poker chips used to secure American aid.

This bargaining exercise has been unseemly all along. If it proceeds, both sides will probably regret it. But the deal has not yet been sealed. And it is not too late to start over.

Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, teaches Middle East politics at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Klacht bij Belgische rechtbank tegen Israël wegens aanval Flotilla

Twee advocaten van het Progress Lawyers Network dienen een klacht in tegen Israël bij de Belgische federale procureur. Ze doen dat in naam van de vier Belgische slachtoffers van de Gaza Flotilla. De klacht luidt: mensrechtenschendingen tijdens de militaire aanval op de Freedom Flotilla, eind mei. Op een persconferentie donderdag in Brussel gaven ze tekst en uitleg.

De Belgische deelneemsters aan de Free Gaza Flotilla van einde mei, Griet Deknopper, Kenza Isnasni en Fatima El Mourabit kondigden aan dat er in de lente van 2011 opnieuw een Free Gaza Flotilla zal proberen de blokkade te doorbreken. Dit keer met nog meer deelnemers. Ze riepen de Belgische overheid op om hierover een duidelijk standpunt in te nemen.



Misdaden tegen de menselijkheid tijdens de aanval tegen de Flotilla

Twee advocaten van het Progress Lawyers Network dienden woensdag een aanvraag in bij de Belgische federale procureur om een onderzoek te starten tegen mensenrechtenschendingen die zijn gebeurd tijdens de Israëlische aanval op twee boten van de Freedom Flotilla.

Het gaat om de aanval op de Mavi Marmara en de Challenger I. Want op die twee boten zaten de Belgische slachtoffers. De klacht is vooral gericht tegen de drie Israëlische verantwoordelijken voor de militaire aanval: vice-admiraal Eliezer Chiney Marom, generaal Gabi Ashkenazi en tegen de minister van Defensie Ehud Barack.

Volgens advocate Julie Tieleman omvat de klacht mishandelingen en mensenrechtenschendingen. "Griet Deknopper is beschoten met een geluidsbom, en heeft nadien geen verzorging gekregen. De vier zijn 72 uur onwettelijk vastgehouden zonder tussenkomst van een rechtbank. Ze moesten lang in de kou en in de regen zitten. Fatima El Mourabit werd op een pijnlijke manier geboeid. Ze zijn alle vier gedeporteerd naar een derde land, Turkije, hoewel ze geen burgers waren van dat land. Ook dat is een schending van het internationaal recht."

"Daarnaast zijn al hun goederen zoals laptops, camera's, en ander bewijsmateriaal afgenomen door het Israëlische leger. Zonder er een bewijs van confiscatie te hebben gekregen wat wettelijk moet. Ook al hebben ze bewijsmateriaal en beelden afgenomen er zijn nog andere mogelijkheden om de aanklachten hard te maken. Zo zijn er verschillende internationale onderzoeken (onder meer van de VN) die slachtoffers hebben geïnterviewd. Die hebben los van elkaar gelijkaardige verklaringen afgelegd", aldus advocate Julie Tieleman.

Artikel 10

De schendingen van de mensenrechten zijn gebeurd buiten België, maar kunnen volgens advocate Joke Callewaert toch door een Belgische rechtbank behandeld worden op basis van artikel 10 van het strafwetboek. Voordien liet de zogenoemde 'antigenocidewet' een dergelijke procedure toe, maar die is fors afgezwakt na politieke druk uit de VS.

Volgens artikel 10 van de Belgische strafwet kan voor misdaden tegen de menselijkheid, oorlogsmisdaden of een genocidemisdaad, gepleegd buiten het eigen grondgebied, een strafrechtelijk onderzoek opgestart worden in België. Er zijn wel enkele voorwaarden aan verbonden. Zo moet er een zekere band zijn met België. Slachtoffers moeten ofwel de Belgische nationaliteit hebben of op het moment van de feiten al twee jaar in België verblijven.

Wat gebeurt er met de klacht?

De Belgische federale procureur kan beslissen dat de klachten ongegrond zijn en de zaak zo laten, ofwel de klacht gegrond verklaren. Dan moet de zaak ofwel in België onderzocht worden of doorgestuurd worden naar het Internationaal Strafhof (ICC). "België kan bijvoorbeeld ook beslissen dat de zaak in Israël moet onderzocht worden, maar daar zijn we tegen", zegt advocate Callewaert. "We vinden dat Israël die zaak niet onafhankelijk kan onderzoeken."
Klacht realistisch of louter symbolisch?

"De feitelijke klacht is realistisch", zegt Joke Callewaert. " We hopen dat er een procedure van komt of tenminste een discussie voor een Belgische rechtbank. We hopen ook dat als de klacht wordt doorgestuurd naar het Internationaal Strafhof deze zich zal uitspreken." Volgens Griet Deknopper gaat het vooral om de druk die ze willen opvoeren tegen de illegale acties van Israël.

Klachten bij het Internationaal Strafhof

Er lopen momenteel al drie klachten tegen Israël bij het Internationaal Strafhof in Den Haag. Turkije en Spanje hebben er al een klacht ingediend. En de Palestijnse Autoriteit heeft nog een klacht lopen tegen Israël wegens oorlogsmisdaden tijdens de oorlog tegen Gaza van januari 2009. "De procureur van het Internationaal Strafhof moet die zaken normaal gezien inleiden bij de rechtbank, maar laat ze liggen. De kans is groot dat bij politiek geladen zaken een klacht gewoon in de vergeethoek geraakt", zegt advocate Callewaert.

Mobilisering in de lente 2011

Kenza Isnansi, één van de Belgische deelneemster aan de Gaza Freedom Flotilla van mei 2010, trekt samen met de andere Belgische deelneemsters de BelgiumToGaza-beweging. BelgiumToGaza is een platform van Belgische organisaties en individuen dat zich engageert om de illegale blokkade van de Gazastrook aan te kaarten.

Ze organiseert allerlei activiteiten om fondsen in te zamelen voor de volgende Flotilla, die normaal in de lente van volgend jaar naar Gaza zal varen. Het wordt een nog grotere vloot, met nog veel meer volk, zegt Isnansi. De twee grote koepels, European Campain to End the Siege of Gaza en de Free Gaza Mouvement, organiseren een boot die groter zal zijn dan de Mavis Marmara. Er wordt gemobiliseerd om een Belgische delegatie mee te sturen.

De deelneemsters aan de vorige Flotilla roepen de Belgische regering op om een duidelijk standpunt in te nemen over de Flotilla.

Kenza, Fatima en Griet weten zelf niet of ze zullen deelnemen aan de volgende Flotilla. "Voor ons is het vooral belangrijk dat we de acties steunen en mobiliseren", zegt Griet. "We zijn met een duidelijk doel naar Gaza vertrokken, we willen de blokkade opheffen. De komende Flotilla heeft hetzelfde doel. We gaan niet akkoord met een verlichting van de blokkade, maar willen de volledige opheffing ervan", aldus Fatima El Mourabit.

(www.dewereldmorgen.be)

Young, Jewish and Proud

In Our Own Words:

• Rae Abileah: Jewish Values vs. Israeli Policies: Why five young Jews disrupted PM Netanyahu in New Orleans
• Matthew Taylor: Why I disrupted Bibi’s speech
• Matthew Taylor: Young Jews Tell Bibi: Israel is Delegitimizing Itself
• Rachel Roberts: Challenging the Jewish General Assembly
• Emily Ratner: We would not have had to interrupt Netanyahu if the world listened to Palestinian voices

Through Others’ Eyes:

• The Forward: Jewish Voice for Peace Activists Interrupt Bibi at GA
• The Forward: Federations Find Youth Outreach Tricky Terrain at Yearly Meeting
• Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Monday morning tussles at the GA
• Ha’aretz: Hecklers disrupt Netanyahu’s speech at U.S. Jewish conference
• Haaretz: A Birthright trip for Palestinians, too? Maybe not
• Ha’aretz: Five years on, New Orleans Jewish community rises from the ruins
• Jerusalem Post: Peace protesters disrupt Netanyahu’s GA speech
• Jerusalem Post: As GA ends, heckling of Netanyahu leaves a bitter taste
• Ynet: Israeli who disrupted PM’s speech: We were raised on human rights
• Ynet: Protestors disrupt Netanyahu’s GA speech in New Orleans
• The Associated Press: Protesters interrupt Netanyahu New Orleans speech
• Ma’an News Agency: Israeli, US Jews disrupt Netanyahu speech
• Al-Ahram: Netanyahu, champion of settlers
• New Voices: JVP Protests Netanyahu’s GA Speech
• Jewish Journal: Bibi’s G.A. Hecklers: Young Jews
• Mondoweiss (with video): Five young Jews disrupt Netanyahu speech with call for new Jewish identity
• Isabel Kershner, The New York Times, As Netanyahu speaks in U.S., Israel publishes plans for new settlement housing
• Dana Milbank, Washington Post: Netanyahu’s Noisy Tour of New Orleans.
• Tikkun: Young Jewish Activists Attract Positive Press for Anti-Occupation Message
• The Third Way, Mitchell Plitnick: Am Yisrael Chai?
• Jewschool: Bibi’s Hecklers
• Jewschool: The Mishpocha
• Shereen Naser: A perspective on the Jewish Federation General Assembly from its only Palestinian attendee
• Ha’aretz: Bibi, Tom Friedman, and U.S. Jews divesting from Israel

www.youngjewishproud.org

Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians: Allowing the thief to negotiate with his victim

SpinWatch | By David Morrison | 3rd November 2010

The negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are equivalent to allowing a thief to negotiate with his victim about the amount of stolen goods he is going to give back, while he keeps his boot on the victim's throat.

Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians began in early September. President Abbas was opposed to direct negotiations without Israel calling a halt to settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.But, he came under great pressure from President Obama to do so and reluctantly gave in.

The Road Map

In May 2003, Israel agreed to freeze all settlement activity prior to the start of negotiations, when it accepted the Road Map (aka "a performance-based roadmap to a permanent two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict") [1].

Drawn up by the Bush Administration, it is the internationally accepted framework for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, endorsed by the Security Council in resolution 1515 [2]. The EU and the Quartet (the US, the EU, Russia and the UN Secretary-General) have regularly called upon both sides to fulfil their obligations under the Road Map (see, for example, a recent Quartet statement of 21 September 2010 [3]).

One of Israel's obligations is that, prior to the start of negotiations:

"Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI [Government of Israel] freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)"

Another obligation was to dismantle all the settlement outposts built after March 2001.

The Israeli government attached reservations to its acceptance of the Road Map, but none of them objected to the obligation to freeze settlement construction [4]. The Palestinians accepted the Road Map without reservations.

The Israeli government has reiterated its commitment to the Road Map on several occasions, for example, at the Annapolis conference held in November 2007, when, in a joint memorandum with President Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert repeated Israel's commitment [5]. However, Israel continued settlement activity while the negotiations following the conference went on.

Obama backs down

So, Mahmoud Abbas was entirely justified in resisting direct negotiations while settlement building continued.Israel's 10-month "moratorium" on settlement building was never a complete freeze, and anyway it didn't apply to East Jerusalem, so it didn't meet the Road Map requirement. And settlement outposts haven't been removed. At the time of writing, the "moratorium" has expired – and Abbas may pull out of direct negotiations.

A year ago, Obama was on Abbas's side in insisting on a freeze on the Jewish colonisation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, prior to the start of negotiations.In his speech in Cairo on 4 June 2009, he declared:

"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements [eg the Road Map] and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." [6]

However, a few months later, in the face of opposition from Prime Minister Netanyahu, he backed down ignominiously. Violating previous agreements and undermining efforts to achieve peace is apparently OK, as long as it is Israel that is doing it.

(It is difficult to believe that he would be as forgiving of Palestinian action that he deemed to be in violation of previous agreements and to undermine efforts to achieve peace. In the same Cairo speech, he insisted that in order "to play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations" Hamas had to "recognize past agreements". He has yet to lift this requirement on Hamas.)

So, having given up trying to persuade the stronger party to stick to past agreements, Obama has been putting ever increasing pressure on the weaker party to enter into direct negotiations while the stronger party continues to be in breach of past agreements – and in early September, with great reluctance, Abbas conceded.

The only reason anybody can think of for this disgraceful bullying of Abbas by Obama is that he wanted a foreign policy "success" before the US mid-term elections.

Mitchell reports

A report published on 30 April 2001 stated:

"Palestinians are genuinely angry at the continued growth of settlements and at their daily experiences of humiliation and disruption as a result of Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories. Palestinians see settlers and settlements in their midst not only as violating the spirit of the Oslo process, but also as an application of force in the form of Israel's overwhelming military superiority, which sustains and protects the settlements." [7]

The chairman of the fact finding mission that drew up this report was George Mitchell, now Obama's Special Envoy for Middle East Peace.Mitchell went on to recommend, inter alia, that, in order to build confidence prior to a resumption of negotiations:

"The GOI [Government of Israel] should freeze all settlement activity, including the ‘natural growth' of existing settlements."

which, as we have seen, was replicated in the Road Map two years later.

One wonders how Mitchell feels now that he has been party to pressuring the Palestinians into direct negotiations with Israel without his proposal from 10 years ago being implemented, particularly since, in the interim, Palestinians have had to endure a rapidly growing number of settlers in their midst.

The Kuwait example

The negotiations are supposed to be about ending Israel's military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, which began in June 1967.The Quartet statement of 21 September stated that "negotiations should lead to an agreement that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian State" [3].

The proper international response to Israel's acquisition of these (and other) territories by force in 1967 should have been to apply what ever pressure was necessary to force Israel to withdraw.The Security Council should have told Israel to leave and, if it didn't, economic sanctions should have been applied to make it leave.If that didn't work, it should have been made to leave by the application of armed force.That's what was done to Iraq when it invaded Kuwait in 1990, and should have been done to Israel in 1967.

But, Israel was not forced to leave.Instead, today, the Israeli occupier is being allowed to negotiate with the people under its occupation about how much, if any, of the territory it acquired by armed force 43 years ago it will give up, and when it will give it up.In these negotiations, Israel holds all the cards, since it dominates the occupied territories, militarily and economically, and is therefore in a position to dictate terms.And, if the Palestinians refuse to agree to those terms, they will continue to be occupied sine die.

These negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are equivalent to allowing a thief to negotiate with his victim about the amount of stolen goods he is going to give back, while he keeps his boot on the victim's throat.

The US has made it clear that it isn't going to help the victim recover the stolen goods, Obama said at the outset the US "cannot impose a solution" [8].He meant "will not".This statement is a green light to Netanyahu to set terms which Abbas cannot accept, in the full knowledge that Obama isn't going to make his life difficult if he does.On present form, Obama is much more likely to make life difficult for Abbas if he refuses to accept Netanyahu's terms.

The US could impose a solution – all it has to do is to cut off, or threaten to cut off, some or all of the US tax dollars that Israel receives annually (around $2.5 billion in 2007 [9]) and/or to make it clear that the US is no longer prepared to protect Israel from criticism, or worse, in international fora, in particular, that the US veto might not always be exercised to protect Israel in the Security Council.

Relentless settlement building

Meanwhile, Israel continues to expand Jewish settlements on the West Bank and East Jerusalem, on the territory that is meant to belong to a Palestinian state at the end of the negotiations.B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, recently published a report on Israel's settlement policy in the West Bank [10].The report begins:

"Some half a million Israelis are now living over the Green Line [the 1967 border] : more than 300,000 in 121 settlements and about one hundred outposts, which control 42 percent of the land area of the West Bank, and the rest in twelve neighborhoods that Israel established on land it annexed to the Jerusalem Municipality."

The Jewish state was assigned 56% of mandate Palestine by UN General Assembly in November 1947.It was expanded by force to 78% in 1947/48, and 750,000 Arabs were expelled into the rest of Palestine and the surrounding Arab states, where they and their descendants live today.That is how a viable Jewish state was established in Palestine in 1948.

In 1967, Israel occupied the remaining 22% and has set about colonising the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, thereby staking a claim to even more territory.

In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) recognised Israel's right to exist within its 1967 borders and adopted the objective of establishing an independent Palestinian state in the remaining 22% of mandate Palestine. This "historic compromise" led to the Oslo agreement in August 1993 and to a series of negotiations under that agreement, culminating in the unsuccessful Camp David talks in July 2000.

Throughout the Oslo process, and subsequently, Israel has continued relentlessly to confiscate Palestinian land and to plant Jewish settlers on it.In 1988, there were about 60,000 settlers in the West Bank and about 120,000 in East Jerusalem (see B'Tselem report [10], p 9/10).Today, those numbers have increased to around 300,000 and 200,000 respectively.The total today at 500,000 is nearly triple what it was in 1988, when the PLO formally settled for a state in 22% of mandate Palestine.

It cannot be coincidental that when Palestinians expressed their willingness to accept a state in 22% of mandate Palestine, Israel accelerated settlement building to make it ever more difficult, if not possible, for them to reach that objective.The territory which is supposed to belong one day to a Palestinian state is being steadily eaten into by Jewish colonisation.

Michael Tarazy, a legal advisor to the PLO, once said: "It's like you and I are negotiating over a piece of pizza. How much of the pizza do I get? And how much do you get? And while we are negotiating it, you are eating it".

Contrary to 4^th Geneva Convention

All of Israel's settlement building is contrary to international law, because it involves the transfer of Israeli civilians into territory occupied by Israel.This is forbidden under Article 49, paragraph 6, of the 4th Geneva Convention, which states:

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."[11]

The United Nations Security Council has made this clear in resolutions 446, 452 and 465, all of which demand that Israel cease settlement building and remove existing settlements.For example, in resolution 446, passed on 22 March 1979, the Security Council states that

"the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"

and calls upon Israel

"to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories" [12].

UN General Assembly

Every year, the UN General Assembly passes a series of resolutions on Israel/Palestine including one demanding that settlement building cease and existing settlements be removed, most recently resolution 64/93 passed on 10 December 2009.This reiterates the General Assembly's demand

"for the immediate and complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, and calls in this regard for the full implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 465 (1980)" [13]

This resolution was passed overwhelmingly (as it is every year), this year by 171 votes to 7.EU states voted for the resolution.The only opponents apart from Israel and the US were Panama and four tiny Pacific states – Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau – which are US clients.

On this matter, and others concerning Israel/Palestine, Israel and the US have very few friends in the world.

The International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has also declared, in its Advisory Opinion on the construction of the Wall [14](paragraph 120), that "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law", contrary to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

International Criminal Court

Under the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court (ICC), the colonisation of occupied territory is a war crime. Article 8.2(b)(viii) of the Statute defines "the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" as a war crime [15].

Since there is no doubt that such transfers have taken place, there is a prima facie case that the many Israeli citizens responsible for these transfers have committed war crimes.However, like the US and other states, for example, Sudan, Israel has not signed up to the ICC and accepted its jurisdiction, so there is no prospect of the ICC prosecuting these Israelis.

Theoretically, the Security Council could refer the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories to the ICC (as it did the situation in Darfur in March 2005, which led to the indictment of President Bashir of Sudan and others by the ICC).Then, the ICC could prosecute Israelis for settlement building carried out since 1 July 2002, when the Rome Statute came into force.Needless to say, it is certain that the US would wield its veto on the Security Council to prevent this happening.

(Speaking of the ICC, it is possible that Israelis could be brought before the ICC for the attack on the Mavi Marmara, which although a Turkish-owned ship was registered in, and flew the flag of, the Comoros.Legally speaking, therefore, the attack took place on the territory of Comoros, which is a party to the ICC.The ICC therefore has jurisdiction over the ship at the time of the attack.This was confirmed [16] by Desmond de Silva, a British judge, who was a member of the UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission into the incident.The mission reported on 22 September 2010 [17].

It appears that the Turkish NGO, IHH, that owned the ship deliberately chose to register it in the Comoros, because the Comoros was a party to the ICC, unlike Turkey.)

What freeze?

At the time of writing, the question dominating media attention is: will Israel renew its "moratorium" on settlement building and save the negotiations?

One question that is worthy of media attention, but is receiving very little, is: what effect did the "moratorium" have on settlement building while it was in operation?The answer is very little.

Here's how Dror Etkes described its effect in a Ha'aretz article [18] entitled Settlement freeze? It was barely a slowdown:

"The official statistics supplied by the Central Bureau of Statistics describe the story behind the 10-month construction moratorium in the West Bank. The story can be called many things but ‘freeze' is certainly not one of them. What took place in the past few months is, in the best case scenario, not more than a negligible decrease in the number of housing units that were built in settlements.

"The data that appeared in the bureau's tables clearly show that. At the end of 2009, the number of housing units that were actively being built on all the settlements together amounted to 2,955. Three months later, at the end of March 2010, the number stood at 2,517. We are therefore talking about a drop of a little more than 400 housing units - some 16 percent of Israeli construction in the West Bank over that period.…

"The real story behind the PR stunt known as the freeze took place in fact in the months prior to that, during which the settlers, with the assistance of the government, prepared well for the months of hibernation foisted upon them. In the half year that preceded the declaration of the freeze, which started at the end of November 2009, dozens of new building sites sprang up, especially in isolated and more extreme settlements east of the fence.

"This piece of information is also well documented in the bureau's numbers. In the first half of 2009, they started to build 669 housing units in the settlements, and then, as the months wore on, the pace of construction increased. Thus in the second half of 2009, no fewer than 1,204 housing units were built - an increase of some 90 percent in construction starts as compared with the first half of the year. …

"If we add to these statistics the fact that the government announced in advance that it planned to approve, in any circumstances and with no connection to the ‘freeze', the construction of 600 housing units in various settlements, and the chaos and anarchy that exists in some settlements and outposts, making it possible for every person to build where and when he feels like it, we shall get quite a good picture of what really happened to the settlements in the past few months."

A real freeze (and demolitions)

By contrast, Palestinian building is severely restricted by Israel in large areas of the West Bank, and has been restricted since Israeli occupation began in 1967.This is graphically described in a fact sheet published in August 2010 [19] by the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) on life for the approximately 150,000 Palestinians living in Area C of the West Bank.

As part of the Oslo process, the West Bank was divided into three zones, referred to as Areas A, B and C, A controlled by the Palestinian Authority (PA), B under joint PA and Israeli control and C wholly under Israeli control.Areas A and B consist of a series of small islands within Area C, which comprises approximately 62% of the West Bank.There, the Israeli Civil Administration (ICA) is in charge of building and planning.

On this, the OCHA fact sheet comments:

"Difficulties in obtaining building permits from the ICA for construction and/or rehabilitation of buildings, prevents the construction of housing to meet natural population growth. In addition, the inability to build or rehabilitate schools and health clinics significantly impedes the adequate provision of basic services. In some cases, permit applications of a high technical standard for funded projects have been pending for years. The ability to rehabilitate rainwater harvesting cisterns and the weatherproofing of dwellings, and even their replacement by portable tents, is prohibited by the ICA.

"Due to the restrictive planning and zoning regulations in practice, the Israeli authorities generally allow Palestinian construction only within the boundaries of ICA-approved municipal plans. These cover less than one percent of Area C, and much of this one percent is already built-up. As a result, Palestinians needing to build in Area C are left with no alternative than to build without a permit and risk demolition of their structure."

And demolitions are common.

Right next to the Palestinians living under these severe building restrictions imposed by Israel are the Jewish-only settlements, which are all in Area C.There, even temporary restrictions on building are fiercely resisted by Israel.It is unthinkable, it is said, that homes cannot be extended to cater for growing families, or that schools and health clinics cannot be built or rehabilitated.

But not if the homes and schools and health centres are for Palestinians.

References:
[1]unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/6129b9c832fe59ab85256d43004d87fa
[2] unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/d744b47860e5c97e85256c40005d01d6/71b2c135fca9d78a85256de400530107
[3]www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/sg2162.doc.htm
[4]www.knesset.gov.il/process/docs/roadmap_response_eng.htm
[5]georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071127.html
[6]www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/
[7]unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/6e61d52eaacb860285256d2800734e9a
[8]www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/01/remarks-president-rose-garden-after-bilateral-meetings

[9]assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33222_20080102.pdf
[10]www.btselem.org/Download/201007_By_Hook_and_by_Crook_Eng.pdf
[11]www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600056
[12]unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/d744b47860e5c97e85256c40005d01d6/ba123cded3ea84a5852560e50077c2dc
[13]unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/b47fb4cb4b13f63b852576b7005b84a4
[14]www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
[15]www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/EA9AEFF7-5752-4F84-BE94-0A655EB30E16/0/Rome_Statute_English.pdf
[16]www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39402183/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa
[17]www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf
[18]www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/settlement-freeze-it-was-barely-a-slowdown-1.316074
[19]www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_area_c_humanitarian_response_plan_fact_sheet_2010_09_03_
english.pdf

More of David Morrison's writing is available on his website