NPK-info 01-07-2001- Nederlands Palestina Komitee / www.palestina-komitee.nl

Over de aanklacht tegen Sharon e.a. vanwege de massamoord in Sabra en
Shatilla in 1982, zie
Human Rights Watch
* http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/06/isr0622.htm
The Washington Post
* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/world/A41261-2001Jun24.html
en berichten hierna.
Op 21 juni werd de Kamercommissie voor Buitenlandse Zaken geïnformeerd over
de aanklacht door één der betrokken Belgische advocaten Michaël Verhaeghe;
Souad Srour gaf kort aan gerechtigheid te zoeken.
Duidelijk werd gemaakt dat ook Nederland wetgeving zou moeten gaan krijgen
zoals België die nu al heeft m.b.t. oorlogsmisdaden en misdaden tegen de
menselijkheid; zou toch wel moeten met Den Haag als "juridische hoofdstad
van de wereld".
==> Voor het proces in België is geld nodig [reiskosten voornamelijk]
==> Postgiro 55.79.294 van het Ned. Palestina Komitee te A'dam staat
hiervoor open
==> Vermeldt "Proces Sharon"

Nederlands wapenaankoop in Israel [Gill-raketsysteem]
* De Jerusalem Post van 2 november 2000 meldt dat de Gill-raket voor het
eerst is gebruikt tegen een Palestijns huis in Beit Jala, hij "deed het
Zie http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2000/11/02/News/News.14752.html
* Over inconsistentie in het Nederlands beleid t.o.v. Israel schrijft Arjan
El Fassed in de Volkskrant van 27 juni.
Nederland doet deze wapenaankoop bij Israel en doet niets met zijn
verplichtingen als partij in de Vierde Geneefse Conventie: "...dat Nederland
de verplichting heeft andere partijen te houden aan de bepalingen van de
Conventie". AEF betoogt dat er sprake is van daden die haaks staan op het
mensenrechtenbeleid van de Nederlandse regering.
* Donderdagochtend 5 juli komt de aankoop nog ter sprake in de Tweede Kamer,
een debatloos hamerstuk?
De PvdA vergeleek deze wapenaankoop met de import van bloemen.

Over "Oslo" en de nederzettingen politiek
* Israel must stop blaming the Palestinians;
It Needs To Understand How It Mismanaged The Peace Negotiations
Martin Woollacott, Guardian June 22, 2001
* Wat eenvoudig te onthouden nederzettingengetallen: 1967 nul kolonisten;
tien jaar terug zo'n 200.000 en nu zo'n 400.000; de verdubbeling was sinds
"Madrid 1991" en grotendeels tijdens "Oslo" begeleidt door een nietsdoend
Europa [en Nederland].
* Zie hierna "The Unsettling Truth About Those Israeli Settlements"
* Israel to expand West Bank housing, Phil Reeves, 26-6-2001

De Palestijnse Vluchtelingen
* Bericht hieronder over een Britse Parlementaire Commissie die onderzoek
deed naar de huidige situatie van de Palestijnse Vluchtelingen.
Uitkomst is een rapport "The Right of Return" dat op 2 juli wordt besproken
in het Lagerhuis.

NPK/WL, 1-7-2001

P.S. JMCC bericht http://www.jmcc.org/new/01/Jun/childaqsa.htm

Sabra en Shatilla 1982 - Citaten uit het bericht van Human Rights Watch:

=> There is abundant evidence that war crimes and crimes against humanity
were committed on a wide scale in the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, but to
date, not a single individual has been brought to justice.

=> As Defense Minister, Ariel Sharon had overall responsibility over the
Israeli Defense Forces and allowed Phalangist militias to enter the camps
where they terrorized the residents for three days.

=> Human Rights Watch said that the United States had a substantial interest
in the case because the Israeli occupation of West Beirut followed written
U.S. assurances that Palestinians remaining there would be safe, as part of
an arrangement that saw the evacuation of Palestine Liberation Organization

=> During the BBC program, Morris Draper, the U.S. Special Envoy to the
Middle East at the time, said that U.S. officials were horrified when told
Sharon had allowed Phalange militias into West Beirut and the camps "because
it would be a massacre." He told the BBC that after the killings began he
cabled Defense Minister Sharon, telling him, "You must stop the slaughter..
The situation is absolutely appalling. They are killing children. You have
the field completely under your control and are therefore responsible for
that area."


Sabra en Shatilla 1982 - Citaat uit Washington Post:

"The investigation of human rights abuses and the notion of accountability
for such abuse is recognized by all civilized states as a fundamental
moral and legal obligation," Fergal Keane, the producer of the
documentary, wrote on the BBC Web site. "With questions now being asked in
France over the behavior of its generals in Algeria, a former U.S.
presidential candidate forced to explain his actions in the Vietnam War,
not to mention the case of General Pinochet [in Chile] . . . the debate
over war crimes has never been more relevant."

Sabra en Shatilla 1982

BADIL Resource Center
Bethlehem, 28-6-2001 (E/36/2001)
(Based on the press release issued by Chibli Mallat, advocate;
Beirut, 22 June 2001)

WAR CRIMES CASE Opened against Israeli Prime Minister ARIEL SHARON in


While Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his right wing national
unity government in Israel continue their efforts aimed at
delegitimizing international law, the Palestinian resistance to the
Israeli occupation, and the Palestinian leadership, public debate
about a possible indictment of Sharon for war crimes committed by him
in the past is on the rise. In Palestine and the Arab world, where
such debate is considered long overdue, recent initiatives, such as a
symbolic, public war crimes tribunal conducted in Cairo, the possible
reopening of investigation into the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre
by the Chief Military Prosecutor in Lebanon, and the recent BBC
broadcast "The Accused" which re-visited Sharon's responsibility for
the 1982 massacre in the two Palestinian refugee camps, were well
received. Moreover, the call for a criminal investigation into
Sharon's role in the Sabra and Shatila massacre issued by the U.S.-
based human rights organization Human Rights Watch last weekend has
raised hopes that the quest for justice will spread beyond the Middle
East and find increasing support in Europe and the United States.

In the meantime, Sabra and Shatila victims and survivors have had
their first day in court in Belgium. On Monday, 18 June 2001 three
lawyers filed before an investigating judge (Madame le juge
d'instruction Sophie Huguet) in Brussels a complaint on behalf of 28
plaintiffs and witnesses, all survivors of the 1982 massacre
committed in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila,
Beirut. With this act, a case has been formally opened against Ariel
Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel, on counts of war crimes, crimes
against humanity and genocide.

Under recent Belgian legislation, introduced in 1993 and modified in
1999, the possibility of bringing war criminals to account was
extended both in terms of citizenship and time. Using established
legal concepts of universal jurisdiction, Belgian legislators have
set aside limitations of time, citizenship and diplomatic status:
foreign heads of state can now be held accountable for their crimes,
whenever committed.

It is worth remembering that Israel invoked universal jurisdiction
when it kidnapped and tried the Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann for
crimes against humanity. His case and other similar cases are cited
at length in the complaint. As then Israeli Minister of Defense,
Sharon planned and directed the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
When Lebanese president-elect Bashir Gemayel was assassinated on 14
September 1982, it was Sharon who ordered the Israeli Army to
penetrate West Beirut and surround the area of the Palestinian
refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. It was Sharon who gave the order
for the Lebanese militias to enter the camps.

The complaint is filed against Ariel Sharon, Amos Yaron and any
Israeli or Lebanese person responsible for genocide, crimes against
humanity, and war crimes that happened between 16-18 September 1982,
including the killing, torture, rape and "disappearance" of between
1,000 and 3,500 civilians - children, women and men, Lebanese and
Palestinians. The complaint is based on customary international law,
including jus cogens, as well as Belgian law.

Even though an official Israeli commission of inquiry (Kahan
Commission, 1983) judged Sharon "personally responsible" for the
massacre, no further legal actions arose from this judgment. With
Sharon's resignation from the office of Minister of Defense, Israeli
and world public opinion soon forgot the massacre and its victims.
The 23 plaintiffs and five witnesses (the distinction is made for
mere procedural reasons under Belgian law) now accusing Sharon
represent a far larger number of people who have never been
recognized as victims nor indemnified for losses.

All the plaintiffs lost close family members, in some cases mother
and father as well as siblings. Reading their testimonies brings back
the horrific scale and character of a massacre that ranks among the
worst of the 20th century.

The plaintiffs are represented by three lawyers: Luc Walleyn, Michael
Verhaeghe, and Chibli Mallat. The day following the formal submission
of the complaint, Patrick Collignon was formally appointed juge
d'instruction to carry out the inquiry. He will conduct the
proceedings, and the inquiry has offically started.

* For further information about the war crimes suit in Belgium,
please check: www.mallat.com
The website includes the full text of the complaint in French,
contact addresses and a bank account for financial support of the
claim of the victims of the Sabra and Shatila massacre.

* For background information see:
Rosemary Sayigh - Seven Day Horror: How the Sabra/Shatila Massacre
was Buried with the Victims; in: al-Majdal No. 9 (March 2001);

* For more on the BBC Panorama broadcast "The Accused" see:

* The statement issued by Human Rights Watch can be found at:


BADIL Resource Center aims to provide a resource pool of alternative,
critical and progressive information and analysis on the
question of Palestinian refugees in our quest to achieve a just and lasting
solution for exiled Palestinians based on the right
of return.
PO Box 728, Bethlehem, Palestine; tel/fax. 02-2747346; email:
info@badil.org; website: www.badil.org

The Unsettling Truth About Those Israeli Settlements


The "historic offer" is a bizarre deception.


CIA Chief George Tenet has brokered a fragile cease-fire that may
bring temporary calm to the Middle East. But, as the recently released
Mitchell Commission report made clear, "a cessation of Palestinian-Israeli
violence will be politically hard to sustain unless the government of
Israel freezes all settlement activity ... including 'natural growth' of
existing settlements."
It was, therefore, not surprising to find Israeli press reports last
week claiming that Israel was close to reaching a "historic agreement"
with the U.S. regarding such a settlement freeze.
What was disturbing, however, was the reported content of this
"freeze." According to press accounts, this so-called agreement provides
that: Only construction beyond current built-up areas will be frozen; no
new settlements will be created; no additional land will be expropriated
for the purpose of construction. Exceptions will be allowed for new roads
and "natural growth" within existing settlements.
The reality is that this is no freeze at all. This "historic
agreement" is nothing more than a repetition of past Israeli commitments
that have been more often breached than observed.
To even be discussing a settlement freeze in 2001 is bizarre. In
fact, it was about a decade ago that Secretary of State James Baker
achieved his own historic compromise. In an effort to build confidence and
coax Arabs and Israelis toward peace, Baker convinced Arab governments to
suspend a key component of their economic boycott of Israel in exchange
for Israel's agreement to a settlement freeze.
Since that time, Israel's settlement presence in the occupied
territories has doubled. While the Israelis continue to claim that they
have not built new settlements and have only allowed for natural growth of
existing settlements, their claims are patently false. Today, what Israel
calls "Greater Jerusalem" is virtually surrounded by a "Great Wall" of new
settlements, which Israel claims are mere "extensions" of existing
neighborhoods. These settlements spread from hill to hill, ringing the
city. Eighteen Palestinian villages have been trapped within these Israeli
compounds and strangled. And while the Israelis continue to claim that
they will not confiscate "new land" on which to build these extensions,
this too is an artful fabrication. Large areas of Palestinian land
surrounding settlements have already been seized by Israel and are defined
as "state" lands.
As damaging as this cancerous growth of settlements has been to the
Palestinians, the dramatic expansion of the network of "Jewish only"
security roads--in reality, superhighways connecting the settlements to
Jerusalem and Tel Aviv--has been even worse. Large swatches of Palestinian
land have been confiscated and declared off-limits to create these roads.
Their impact has been to cut the occupied territories into pieces.
All of this has been in direct fulfillment of the original Likud plan
for the occupied territories first defined in an October 1978 World
Zionist Organization's "White Paper." The paper lays out a detailed plan
to construct "settlements and roads around the settlements of the
minorities [i.e. the Palestinians], but also in between them," so that the
West Bank would never again form a contiguous land mass.
All of this was opposed by successive U.S. presidents, from Jimmy
Carter to Bill Clinton. Whether decrying the settlements as "illegal,"
"obstacles to peace," "unhelpful unilateral act," "provocative" or
"impediments," opposition was clear, but no forceful or definitive action
was taken to halt in their growth.
In violation of international law, 400,000 Israelis have been allowed
to move into settlements that now carve the West Bank and Gaza into
pieces. More than that, tens of thousands of these settlers are a hostile
and dangerous vigilante presence, armed not only with weapons but an
uncompromising theologically based ideology of entitlement and conquest.
Many Israelis understand the dangers posed by this situation. They
know that despite the rhetoric of a new "freeze," the intent of the
government remains the same.
As Yossi Sarid, a leader of the Meretz Party, noted: "When you build
new settlements or expand existing settlements, it means that you want to
persist with the occupation and deepen it."
So excuse me if I remain unconvinced by this latest "settlement
freeze," full, as it is, of loopholes and exceptions.
This so-called "historic agreement" in the works is a dramatic step
back from the Mitchell report's recommendation and, as such, an
accommodation to Israel's intent to continue and deepen its presence in
the occupied territories.
It is a deception that undercuts the very peacemaking efforts that
U.S. policymakers are working hard to promote.
- - -
James J. Zogby Is President of the Arab American Institute in Washington

BADIL Resource Center
For immediate release, 26-6-2001 (E/35/2001)

"It would be a severe mistake to ignore the claims of the wide
community of Palestinian Refugees"

"Recognition, Protection and Implementation of Palestinian Refugees'
Right of Return"

In March 2001, the British Joint Parliamentary Commission of Enquiry
on Palestinian Refugees that traveled to the region in September 2000
issued its report entitled "Right of Return." The 200 page report is
based on hearings conducted by the Commission in refugee communities
in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria concerning
Palestinian preferences with regard to durable solutions based on
internationally recognized rights (i.e., right of return, self-
determination, and the principle of free choice).

The report, dedicated to the children at Miya Miya refugee camp in
Sidon and the dreams they shared as well as to the lost dreams of the
children of Tal al-Za'tar camp, 1976, and of Sabra and Shatila camps,
1982, includes a preface by Professor Richard Falk, historical
background, main findings of the refugees' testimony, general remarks
and analysis, recommendations by the Commission of Enquiry, and
information on the establishment of the Commission of Enquiry as well
as annexes containing evidence in detail and other supporting

In the preface, American professor Richard Falk writes, "The clarity
of international law and morality, as pertaining to Palestinian
refugees, is beyond any serious question. It needs to be appreciated
that the obstacles to implementation are exclusively political - the
resistance of Israel, and the unwillingness of the international
community, especially the Western liberal democracies, to exert
significant pressure in support of these Palestinian refugee rights."
Given the intensity and the unity of refugees insistence on
implementation of the right of return, the preface warns that it
would be "a severe mistake of history, with potentially serious
repercussions ... [to] negotiate a solution that ignores the
underlying claims of the wide community of Palestinian refugees."
"How to overcome [the depth of Israeli resistance]," notes Falk, "is
a challenge that should haunt the political imagination of all those
genuinely committed to finding a just and sustainable reconciliation
between Israel and Palestine."

The bulk of the report includes the collection of testimonies from
refugees in the Gaza Strip, West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
These testimonies are summarized under several main themes which
surfaced during the hearings conducted by the Commission. The themes
include the refugee issue as the core of the conflict between
Arabs/Palestinians and Israel, the fact that refugees felt excluded
from the Oslo process, the issue of representativeness, the profound
identification and attachment of Palestinian refugees to the land and
their self-identification with it as a people, the British role in
creating the refugee problem and Israeli and international
responsibility, and the importance of UNRWA as the basic defender of
the minimal rights of refugees and the threat of UNRWA being

The main theme that the Commission of Enquiry discovered, however,
was the remarkable cohesion and consistency among refugees. "Certain
positions that could be seen to divide the refugees, since they
involved a possible enhancement of their personal interests over
other groups of refugees," notes the report, "were confronted
outright by the refugees themselves." Refugees in all areas
emphasized that the right of return must apply to all refugees,
regardless of their physical, financial position or location. "The
main principle is that all Palestinians want this resolution to be
implemented," stated Khalid al-Azza, "that is the resolution of the
right of refugees to return and to compensation for the 52 years
passed since they left their land, houses, and factories."

The report, prepared by the Labor Middle East Council, Conservative
Middle East Council, and the Liberal Democrat Middle East Council
will be presented to Israel, the PLO, European governments and the
European Union to remind the international community of its
responsibility to establish a mechanism appropriate for the
implementation of refugee choice. Central findings of the report will
be presented by Neil Gerrard MP, member of the British Commission of
Enquiry at the House of Commons on 2 July 2001.

For further information about orders of the Report "The Right of
Return" and the 2 July talk at the British House of Commons please
Bridget Gilchrist, c/o CAABU: lmec@arab-british.u-net.com
Al-Awda, Palestine Right of Return Coalition-UK: info@al-awda.org.uk

BADIL Resource Center aims to provide a resource pool of alternative,
critical and progressive information and analysis on the
question of Palestinian refugees in our quest to achieve a just and lasting
solution for exiled Palestinians based on the right
of return.
PO Box 728, Bethlehem, Palestine; tel/fax. 02-2747346; email:
info@badil.org; website: www.badil.org


vorige pagina