Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Israeli Human Rights Violations

Mother and her four children killed during Israeli incursion

A Palestinian mother and her four children were killed yesterday as they ate breakfast at home during an Israeli military attack in the Gaza Strip.

The violence came despite efforts led by the Egyptians to arrange a ceasefire between Israel and the militant groups in Hamas-controlled Gaza.

Shortly after 8am yesterday, Meyasar Abu Me’tiq was in her home in the eastern town of Beit Hanoun with her six children. Israeli military vehicles had crossed into Gaza on one of their now frequent incursions and there were reports of heavy gunfire in the area. The Israeli military said it launched an air strike against two men who it said were gunmen approaching the Israeli soldiers.

Shrapnel from the attack appears to have severely damaged the Abu Me’tiq house, and particularly the front door. Four of the children were killed immediately, according to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights: Saleh, five, Rudeina, four, Hana, three and one-year-old Mes’id. The children’s mother, Meyasar, 40, was severely injured and died later. The two other children and 10 others who were nearby were also injured.

(Continue reading: The Guardian)

The intervention by Israeli Attorney General Menachem Mazuz to suspend a plan to restrict electricity supplies to Gaza raises the issue of Israel’s rights and responsibilities under international humanitarian law.

Earlier, there were protests from human rights groups, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon – who called the measure “unacceptable” – and the European Union External Affairs Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner, who said: “There should not be collective punishment”.

The Israeli attorney general has the right to intervene in any sanctions taken against Gaza and he did approve restrictions on the supply of petrol and diesel fuel there, but the plan to cut electricity needed “more study”, he said, to reduce the effect on the civilian population.

He is acting according to a decision taken by the Israeli government itself that measures against Gaza should not cause “a humanitarian crisis.”

It agreed on the squeeze on Sunday as part of a strategy to try to reduce the number of rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel.

The concept is to cut the supply of fuel and to limit the supply of electricity if there are rocket attacks. These, Israeli officials say, have totalled 1,826 since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.

Geneva obligations

Israel no longer occupies Gaza with troops. However, it retains control over Gaza’s airspace and coastline, and over its own border with the territory. It also controls the flow of goods, including fuel and energy supplies, in and out.

Many still regard it as an occupying power. In a study on the legal aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the BBC in 2006, international lawyer Noam Lubell acknowledged this, though he accepted that some of the issues remained “highly debatable”.

An occupying power is obliged to follow the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which seeks to protect the civilian population. The Security Council held in 1979 that the Fourth Convention did apply in the territories captured by Israel in 1967.

Israel, however, has never accepted that the convention should formally apply in the occupied territories, arguing that the conventions refer to occupied state sovereign territories. However it has said that it will be bound by their “humanitarian provisions”.

The plan is to use these steps to increase pressure – they are unpleasant but better that than a military operation

Lior Ben Dor
Israeli embassy official, London

Its recent declaration that Gaza is a “hostile entity” and its regular military operations inside Gaza create an obligation on it to respect the 1977 additional protocols to the Fourth Convention, which protect civilian populations in time of conflicts that fall short of war.

Israel has not signed these protocols but there is an expectation internationally that it should respect them.

Israel argues that it is not obliged to help a “hostile” territory beyond whatever is necessary to avoid a humanitarian crisis.

Human Rights Watch rejects this argument: “A mere declaration does not change the facts on the ground that impose on Israel the status and obligations of an occupying power,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of its Middle East division.

At issue here as well is whether such collective measures do not sufficiently distinguish between civilian and military. Article 48 of the additional protocol would seem to be most relevant in this case: “… The Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objective.”

‘Broken promises’

The Israeli argument is that limited sanctions are better than another major military incursion and that its right to self-defence cannot be ignored.

“The reason for our dilemma, ” said Lior Ben Dor of the Israeli embassy in London, “is the huge number of Qassam rockets fired at us. We have to defend ourselves.

“After our disengagement, we thought that Gaza would be helped by Arab states. One even promised to build homes for 30,000 people on the old Israeli settlements. But since the Hamas coup, this hasn’t happened. Although we are not legally responsible, we don’t want the people to starve. We let trucks in every day with food supplies.

“The plan is to use these steps to increase pressure. They are unpleasant but better that than a military operation. We hope in this way they will get the message.”

As usual in the Middle East, it is not international law that determines policy. The firing of Qassam rockets at Israeli towns itself is internationally regarded as violating the Geneva Convention prohibition on attacks aimed solely at civilians. That does not stop the rockets. Arguments about whether the Israeli influence over Gaza constitutes a legal occupation are remote to those living there.

Source: BBC News

A psychologist blames assaults on civilians in the 1990s on soldiers’ bad training, boredom and poor supervision

A study by an Israeli psychologist into the violent behaviour of the country’s soldiers is provoking bitter controversy and has awakened urgent questions about the way the army conducts itself in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

Nufar Yishai-Karin, a clinical psychologist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, interviewed 21 Israeli soldiers and heard confessions of frequent brutal assaults against Palestinians, aggravated by poor training and discipline. In her recently published report, co-authored by Professor Yoel Elizur, Yishai-Karin details a series of violent incidents, including the beating of a four-year-old boy by an officer.

The report, although dealing with the experience of soldiers in the 1990s, has triggered an impassioned debate in Israel, where it was published in an abbreviated form in the newspaper Haaretz last month. According to Yishai Karin: ‘At one point or another of their service, the majority of the interviewees enjoyed violence. They enjoyed the violence because it broke the routine and they liked the destruction and the chaos. They also enjoyed the feeling of power in the violence and the sense of danger.’

In the words of one soldier: ‘The truth? When there is chaos, I like it. That’s when I enjoy it. It’s like a drug. If I don’t go into Rafah, and if there isn’t some kind of riot once in some weeks, I go nuts.’

Another explained: ‘The most important thing is that it removes the burden of the law from you. You feel that you are the law. You are the law. You are the one who decides… As though from the moment you leave the place that is called Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel] and go through the Erez checkpoint into the Gaza Strip, you are the law. You are God.’

The soldiers described dozens of incidents of extreme violence. One recalled an incident when a Palestinian was shot for no reason and left on the street. ‘We were in a weapons carrier when this guy, around 25, passed by in the street and, just like that, for no reason – he didn’t throw a stone, did nothing – bang, a bullet in the stomach, he shot him in the stomach and the guy is dying on the pavement and we keep going, apathetic. No one gave him a second look,’ he said.

The soldiers developed a mentality in which they would use physical violence to deter Palestinians from abusing them. One described beating women. ‘With women I have no problem. With women, one threw a clog at me and I kicked her here [pointing to the crotch], I broke everything there. She can’t have children. Next time she won’t throw clogs at me. When one of them [a woman] spat at me, I gave her the rifle butt in the face. She doesn’t have what to spit with any more.’

Yishai-Karin found that the soldiers were exposed to violence against Palestinians from as early as their first weeks of basic training. On one occasion, the soldiers were escorting some arrested Palestinians. The arrested men were made to sit on the floor of the bus. They had been taken from their beds and were barely clothed, even though the temperature was below zero. The new recruits trampled on the Palestinians and then proceeded to beat them for the whole of the journey. They opened the bus windows and poured water on the arrested men.

The disclosure of the report in the Israeli media has occasioned a remarkable response. In letters responding to the recollections, writers have focused on both the present and past experience of Israeli soldiers to ask troubling questions that have probed the legitimacy of the actions of the Israeli Defence Forces.

The study and the reactions to it have marked a sharp change in the way Israelis regard their period of military service – particularly in the occupied territories – which has been reflected in the increasing levels of conscientious objection and draft-dodging.

The debate has contrasted sharply with an Israeli army where new recruits are taught that they are joining ‘the most ethical army in the world’ – a refrain that is echoed throughout Israeli society. In its doctrine, published on its website, the Israeli army emphasises human dignity. ‘The Israeli army and its soldiers are obligated to protect human dignity. Every human being is of value regardless of his or her origin, religion, nationality, gender, status or position.’

However, the Israeli army, like other armies, has found it difficult to maintain these values beyond the classroom. The first intifada, which began in 1987, before the wave of suicide bombings, was markedly different to the violence of the second intifada, and its main events were popular demonstrations with stone-throwing.

Yishai-Karin, in an interview with Haaretz, described how her research came out of her own experience as a soldier at an army base in Rafah in the Gaza Strip. She interviewed 18 ordinary soldiers and three officers whom she had served with in Gaza. The soldiers described how the violence was encouraged by some commanders. One soldier recalled: ‘After two months in Rafah, a [new] commanding officer arrived… So we do a first patrol with him. It’s 6am, Rafah is under curfew, there isn’t so much as a dog in the streets. Only a little boy of four playing in the sand. He is building a castle in his yard. He [the officer] suddenly starts running and we all run with him. He was from the combat engineers.

‘He grabbed the boy. I am a degenerate if I am not telling you the truth. He broke his hand here at the wrist, broke his leg here. And started to stomp on his stomach, three times, and left. We are all there, jaws dropping, looking at him in shock…

‘The next day I go out with him on another patrol, and the soldiers are already starting to do the same thing.”

Yishai-Karin concluded that the main reason for the soldiers’ violence was a lack of training. She found that the soldiers did not know what was expected of them and therefore were free to develop their own way of behaviour. The longer a unit was left in the field, the more violent it became. The Israeli soldiers, she concluded, had a level of violence which is universal across all nations and cultures. If they are allowed to operate in difficult circumstances, such as in Gaza and the West Bank, without training and proper supervision, the violence is bound to come out.

A spokeswoman for the Israeli army said that, if a soldier deviates from the army’s norms, they could be investigated by the military police or face criminal investigation.

She said: ‘It should be noted that since the events described in Nufar Yishai-Karin’s research the number of ethical violations by IDF soldiers involving the Palestinian population has consistently dropped. This trend has continued in the last few years.’

Source: The Guardian

United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday that she asked the Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Sallai Meridor for clarifications about an Israeli plan to build a road near Jerusalem, partly on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians charge the construction will cut them off from Jerusalem.

Rice told reporters on the way to Moscow that she has not received a reply. Rice is due in Israel and the Palestinian areas over the weekend.

The Israel Defense Forces recently issued an order expropriating over 1,100 dunams of land from four Arab villages located between East Jerusalem and the West Bank illegal settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim, which is also built on stolen Palestinian land.

The land is slated to be used for a new Palestinian road that would connect East Jerusalem with Jericho. That in turn would “free up” the E-1 area between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim – through which the current Jerusalem-Jericho road runs – for a long-planned Jewish development consisting of 3,500 apartments and an industrial park.

The Palestinians and the international community, including the United States, have long objected to the E-1 plan on the grounds that it would cut the West Bank in two and sever East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. Israel claims that the new road will solve this latter problem.

Due mainly to American objections, the E-1 plan has been frozen since 2004, other than construction of a thus-far empty police station in the area. Public Security Minister Avi Dichter told Haaretz last week that police would move into the station by the end of this year. However, Israel promised the U.S. at the time that the station would not serve as an initial stage of the full housing project.

The land is being confiscated from the villages of Abu Dis, Arab al-Sawahra, Nebi Musa and Talhin Alhamar. The expropriation order was signed on September 24.

The new road will run along a route originally planned by the Ma’aleh Adumim municipality in 2005. According to that plan, the route was meant to ensure “transportational contiguity among Palestinian population centers.”

The plan also noted that the proposed housing development in E-1 would create an uninterrupted urban expanse between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim. Such an expanse would effectively sever the territorial contiguity between the northern and southern West Bank.

Ma’aleh Adumim’s plan also called for building several other new roads to ensure “transportational contiguity” among Palestinian cities after work started on E-1. For instance, it proposed a ring road east of Ma’aleh Adumim that would link Hebron and Bethlehem, south of the settlement, with Ramallah to its north. Until the current expropriation order was issued, however, no steps had been taken toward building any of these roads.

Vice Prime Minister Haim Ramon, the minister in charge of the “seam” region that runs along the border between Israel and the West Bank, told Haaretz that he was not consulted about the expropriation order and knows nothing about it.

The Defense Ministry said that the land was expropriated to pave the road and “has nothing to do with the E-1 issue.”

An official in the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, who asked to remain anonymous, said that he could not comment on the expropriation order, “since we don’t yet know all the details,” but in general the U.S. opposes any move that could impair the chances of an Israeli-Palestinian final-status deal.

Barak Ravid contributed to this report.

A report in Haaretz was used for this story.

Source: The Corner Report

Haim Ramon has made a big comeback. As if renewing the Hebrew language, he has coined the term “infrastructural oxygen” – Israel should strike a blow at Gaza’s infrastructural oxygen. Faithful to his suggestions in the Second Lebanon War (“It is permissible to destroy everything”), he is now the progenitor of the doctrine advocating cutting off the electricity, fuel and water supply to Gaza. Ramon is very proud of his demonic plan: “It’s the first time the government has discussed these types of proposals,” he said. In his eyes, the legal aspect is “hallucinatory”; there is no difference between Hamas and Al-Qaida. And what will happen if this cutoff of water and electricity to Gaza is not effective? “Until we try, we’ll never know,” the minister told an interviewer. That is, we are dealing with an experiment on human beings. As we all know, Ramon is a representative of a centrist party and is considered one of the party’s moderates.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is a moderate, too. She also supports the Ramon doctrine. She says that, “It is inconceivable that life in Gaza continues to be normal.” In the view of the moderate foreign minister, life in Gaza is “normal” – it seems she has no idea about what life is really like there – and a cutoff of supplies will bring an end to the Qassams. The hungry, thirsty and suffocating populace will exert pressure and, hocus pocus, there will be no more Qassams.

These crazy ideas have elicited fewer arguments among us than the proposals to require bicycle riders to wear helmets. The whole debate was conducted in a dignified manner: One person proposes cutting off electricity, while another suggests putting an end to the supply of cigarettes and perfume. No one expresses any opposition or calls out in protest – all we have to do is hear the position of the legal advisors, to decide and then to execute. Avigdor Lieberman, Shaul Mofaz and Avi Dichter have become superfluous: The moderates are doing the necessary work. Israeli discourse has become monstrous – and the terrible thing about it is that these are no longer the proposals of the loony fringes, but rather of the centrist stream. How does the right-wing put it? “There are no moderate Palestinians.” Well, there are no moderate Israelis. When it comes to us, the center is the right in disguise.

But, as luck would have it, just as this incitement to commit war crimes was being raised, a report was issued at the end of last week by Human Rights Watch, a reputable and unbiased American organization. The report mentions evidence that Israel Defense Forces officers were responsible for committing war crimes in Lebanon and that Israel seriously violated international law in indiscriminately killing hundreds of citizens. Ramon and Livni’s proposals have prepared the ground for the next report. After implementing the Ramon plan, the call will intensify to boycott Israel and bring those responsible for the next crime to trial.

There is no room for debating legal nuances: Inflicting intentional harm against a civilian population constitutes a war crime. And 40 years of occupation in Gaza has not ended – it has only changed form. But Ramon’s path is not only illegal and immoral, it is also ineffective. How long will we continue to believe that striking a population will make it more moderate? Are 40 years of bitter experience not enough to teach us that the opposite is true?

Another question: Is Gilad Shalit’s fate more dear to us than the fate of the children of Sderot? Why is it permissible to negotiate with Hamas when it comes to Shalit, while the option of similar talks with the group on a cease-fire – the only way to ensure the safety of Sderot’s children – is considered heresy? The parents in Sderot should have been the first to call upon the government to reach a cease-fire, instead of dispatching the IDF into Gaza and carrying out Ramon’s zany proposals.

We should recall for a moment the last electric blackout we experienced. In June 2006, the Israel Electric Corporation implemented electric outages lasting several hours – just several hours. All hell was raised: Telephone exchanges collapsed as people stuck in elevators called for help; a resident of Ofakim who was attached to an oxygen machine was hospitalized in serious condition. Are Livni and Ramon prepared to realize the significance of cutting off “the infrastructural oxygen” for days and weeks? Are they ready to take responsibility for doing so after the world has had its say and perhaps even takes action? Several convicted statesmen are already sitting in the prisons in The Hague.

Source: Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/902119.html

Hamas masked gunmen check the damage of a building after a military raid in the Bueij refugee camp, central Gaza Strip, 6 Jul 2007
Hamas masked gunmen check the damage of a building after a military raid in the Bueij refugee camp, central Gaza Strip, 06 Jul 2007

Israeli forces pulled out of the Gaza Strip Friday after one of the deadliest days of fighting there since Hamas militants seized control of the territory in mid-June.At least 11 Palestinian militants died in fighting Thursday between Israeli troops and gunmen from Hamas and Islamic Jihad in central Gaza.

Israel says its forces were targeting militants firing rockets at the Jewish state and looking for tunnels used to smuggle weapons.

In Washington Friday, the U.S. State Department announced officials from the Quartet of Middle East peace mediators will meet in London next week.

Officials from the United States, United Nations, European Union, and Russia will Tuesday discuss events in the region and the role of the group’s new envoy – former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Mr. Blair will not attend Tuesday’s meeting. State Department spokesman Tom Casey also said he is not aware of any plans for Mr. Blair in his new role as Mideast envoy to meet with Hamas.

Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in fighting with the rival group Fatah led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Afterwards, Mr. Abbas dismissed the Hamas-led unity government and formed another administration based in the West Bank.

Source: Voice of America
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-07-06-voa33.cfm

Brothers-in-Arms

The Triumph of US/Israeli Policy in Palestine

By JENNIFER LOEWENSTEIN

Contrary to the many claims that the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip represents the failure of US and Israeli policies in Palestine, the violent civil infighting that has dominated the Gaza Strip over much of the last year and a half and that led directly to the Hamas coup of June 2007, marks yet another major foreign policy victory for the occupiers. Hamas will never be allowed to remain in power in Gaza so we must fear for the future of that tiny, desperately overcrowded strip of land and its 1.4 million inhabitants; additionally, Abbas ­in order to maintain his role as “Good Guy”- will have to accede to the dictates of Israel and the United States or suffer the same fate as his predecessor, Yassir Arafat.

Western nations are standing by in silence as the deadly siege of Gaza and the dismemberment of the West Bank continue unabated. What we are witnessing in full view each day are unprecedented steps taken by the world’s only superpower and its favorite client state, Israel, to ensure the death of a nation. While friction between the two key political factions in the occupied Palestinian territories has long undermined the smooth functioning of internal affairs, it was the direct, cynical involvement of US and Israeli policy-makers in these affairs that guaranteed the breakdown of internal stability and paved the way for the Hamas “coup” in Gaza.

Media reports have been careful to leave out important facts leading up to the coup such as that Hamas was the legitimate, democratically elected ruling party in the Palestinian territories following the January 2006 Palestine Legislative Council elections; that it was the US-Israeli dismissal of those election results that fueled the civil infighting between Hamas and Fatah; that obvious US backing of Fatah against Hamas helped create popular mistrust of Fatah increasing Hamas’ popularity in Gaza and leading directly to Hamas’ takeover of the Fatah military apparatus in the Gaza Strip. In other words, there were real and understandable reasons for the coup. But in the end, Hamas’ seizure of the power it should have had in the first place ends up serving the interests not only of Mahmoud Abbas and the warlord Muhammad Dahlan. It also provides the perfect opportunity for US-Israeli policy in the region to move forward with even fewer objections, if that is possible to imagine, than have heretofore been made. Who will stand up for a “terrorist organization that seeks the destruction of Israel”? The line has been beaten into our heads with every mention of the word “Hamas” for years. We should not expect a change in the behavior of the American public or of other western audiences until, when Israel is mentioned, we immediately say to ourselves, “a terrorist state that seeks the destruction of Palestine.” Seeks and is succeeding in it.


II.

Watching the barbarous killing between brothers in Gaza, a power struggle between rival factions seething in frenzy like the great prison in which they thrive, Israeli and American political analysts can rest their cases with confidence. Across the spectrum of debate, these experts can expect vindication by the media juries who, in sanctimonious indignation at the brutality meted out by partisans of Fatah or Hamas, have assembled all the “evidence” they need to justify our righteous war against Muslim-Arab terrorists and their internecine blood feuds.

That the US has temporarily chosen a weak, compliant leader, Mahmoud Abbas, and the power thirsty warlord, Muhammad Dahlan, to back during the bitter strife between key Palestinian factions testifies not to a belief that one side is trustworthy and deserves our support, but rather to the ease with which the Americans and their clients pick and choose their pawns in their bitter regional cockfights. Today’s statesmen were yesterday terrorists, their titles dependent on the needs of the superpower and its clients: yesterday Fatah was on the US State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations and its leader, Yassir Arafat, was a declared “terrorist,” “irrelevant,” and exiled in his presidential compound in Ramallah until his mysterious death. Fatah’s military wing, the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades is still listed as a foreign terrorist organization. Neither of these factors apparently bothers the current leadership which understands that power and prestige are most easily acquired and unchallenged when bequeathed from above.

Truth be told, the Abbas/Dahlan alliance elicits far greater contempt in the eyes of the masters than the more independent and genuine resistance faction headed by Hamas. The numerous meetings and photo-ops between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Abbas, and US President George Bush and Abbas, are little more than tactical stunts to make it look as though genuine negotiations are taking place. In fact, Abbas has been repeatedly by-passed and shunned when Israeli and US negotiators make the real policy decisions; decisions that remain one-sided and dismissive of any demands-other than those that are entirely self-serving-that Abbas and his entourage have made. The arms and funding channeled through Abbas’ Fatah (for his clique represents only one of the many spin-off Fatahs that emerged during the second Intifada) signify little more than the conduit through which US-Israeli policies can be secured. For all the claims about US backing of Fatah, neither Abbas nor Dahlan have yet to benefit on the ground from this “support”. Indeed, the ease with which Hamas was able to wrest control of Gaza indicates just how little US support for Fatah was worth there. Nevertheless, the same pipeline of support for “Fatah” has done a great deal to bolster perceived US and Israeli national security interests in the same region.

III.

Once again the pictures on our television screens in our newspapers are intended to suffice for missing substance; the context of empire is invisible or deliberately obscured ­in Palestine as in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere. If the takeover of Gaza by Hamas was unanticipated, its success was a gift of immeasurable value to the overlords; a welcome but unforeseen consequence of fueling divisions among a weakened and oppressed people, undermining any steps toward positive change. Abbas and his underlings have foolishly offered up Palestine cut in two to the occupation regime that worked so hard to end the charade of a single Palestine to begin with. This was a coup for Israel in its on-going quest for regional hegemony, and a triumph for America’s “War on Terror.” For all the talk about a one-, two- or bi-national state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict, the reality is that no state solution for Palestine is on the near or distant horizon. Palestine is a series of disconnected pieces whose division into still smaller parts continues month after month.

Those fretting about a “Hamastan” in the Gaza Strip ought to be worried not about its viability or longevity or about whether or not Islamic law and social mores will be imposed. Hamas’ presence in Gaza will be but a short-lived, transitory phenomenon entirely at the mercy of the US-backed Israeli military which has not left Gaza alone for a single day since Hamas’ coming to power despite a yearlong ceasefire called by its leaders and scrupulously observed. Those concerned about a Hamas-controlled Gaza ought instead to be wondering how they are going to justify Hamas’ destruction within the Strip and all the suffering, chaos and death that will ensue over the shameful silence of the international community.

IV.

Claims that Hamas’ “victory” in the Gaza Strip is a sign that the Bush Doctrine in Palestine has failed are misguided. While no one can foresee all of the events that might take place in a region as volatile as the Middle East, Hamas’ takeover in Gaza will ultimately benefit Israel and the United States. It will benefit Israel by giving it a free hand to destroy Hamas, permanently sever the West Bank from the Gaza Strip, and re-”negotiate” with its newly appointed “partners” the remaining islands of economically unviable territory that will soon be entirely encircled by a concrete and barbed-wire wall, cut off from their supplies of water and fertile land, and separated internally by “Arab-free” roads. It will benefit Israel and the United States by assuring another compliant puppet regime adjacent to Jordan, friendly to Egypt and Saudi Arabia and hostile to Hizbullah, Syria and Iran, even as the fault lines harden. It has already benefited both Israel and the United States by reassuring them that their tactics for undermining indigenous experiments in democracy have once again proven effective; that the people who have dared to defy those tactics learn quickly how painful it is to advocate or practice popular sovereignty and the rule of law.

Mahmoud Abbas has already learned how well complicity and collaboration are rewarded. Having dismissed Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, dissolved the national unity government, declared a new, ‘legitimate’ government under his rule and appointed his friends to work beside him, he recently stepped into the limelight with an address on Palestine TV, broadcast in the US on C-SPAN, by announcing how he would further “enhance democracy.” This would begin by no longer speaking to “murderers,” by which he meant Hamas.

Clearly, his membership application into the club of the Good Guys has been, for the time being, approved.

Jennifer Loewenstein is the Associate Director of the Middle East Studies Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is a member of the board of the Israeli Coalition against House Demolitions-USA branch, founder of the Madison-Rafah Sister City Project and a freelance journalist. She can be reached at: amadea311@earthlink.net

Source: CounterPunch
http://counterpunch.com/loewenstein06252007.html

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.