|
_______________________________________________________________________
NPK-info 11-12-2001- Nederlands Palestina Komitee
/ www.palestina-komitee.nl
_______________________________________________________________________
OPROEP hieronder:
VN-Resolutie 194 over het recht op terugkeer van de
Palestijnse
vluchtelingen is vandaag 53 jaar oud - Uitvoering
geven aan deze resolutie
is de kern van de oplossing.
Erg weinig aandacht hiervoor in de media!
Een verdere greep uit de berichten
* Een analyse van de politiek van Sharon: 'We
Have No Water for Them to Drink', Christopher Dickey, 7-12-2001
Citaat: " Last night, the Israeli army entered
and occupied the office of
the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS)
in Balou'a, Ramallah.
Soldiers destroyed the five floor building and stole
the office's computers,
and with them all information held."
* Sharon chose the Hamas, Amira
Hass, 5-12 [zie ook de Volkskrant van 6-12]
* Grave situation for Palestinian
children, DCI/PS
* Israel's intentions in removing
Arafat, R.S. Zaharna
* 114 states condemn Israelis,
Fiona Fleck in Geneva, 6-12-2001
Bijeenkomst
Voor een openbare bijeenkomst met Politieke Jongeren
in de Rode Hoed op 18
december, zie hierna het bericht
van Amnesty International.
Uit "Politiek Terrorisme", Marcel
van Dam in de Volkskrant van 6-12:
* "Zolang de Israelische onderdrukking
voortduurt zal het, zo schat ik in,
de meeste Palestijnen een zorg zijn wie Israel schade
toebrengt. Zoals het
Amerika een zorg zal zijn wat het morele gehalte is
van gewapende groepen
die zij kunnen gebruiken om elders politieke
doeleinden te realiseren."
* "Een volk of een land dat in strijd met het
internationale recht wordt
bezet, heeft het recht zich daartegen te verzetten,
uiteindelijk ook met
geweld."
In NOVA van 6-12 meldt Israelisch oud-minister
Ben-Ami [onder Barak] niet te
weten wat Arafat wil daar Israel de Palestijnen in
Camp-David toch "alles
boden". Als je een leugen maar vaak genoeg
herhaalt dan wordt ie vanzelf
waar, zo moet hij gedacht hebben.
Een kritische NOVA-journalist ontbrak helaas en
wederhoor was er ook al
niet.
Over Sharon & Sabra en
Shatila, De Standaard van 27-11-2001
* "Nieuwe, vertrouwelijke documenten tonen aan
dat de huidige Israëlische
premier, Ariel Sharon, en de toenmalige legertop
rechtstreekse
verantwoordelijkheid dragen voor de slachtpartijen in
de Palestijnse
vluchtelingenkampen Sabra en Shatila in 1982."
NPK/WL, 11-12-2001
_______________________________________________________________________
top
BADIL Resource Center
For immediate release, 11 December 2001 (E/67/2001)
-----------------------------
53rd Anniversary of G.A. Resolution 194 (1948)
OPEN LETTERS to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
and to UN Member States and UN Agencies/Organs
Urging Support for Mr. Annan in Implementing G. A.
Resolution 194
Fifty-three years ago, on 11 December 1948, the UN
General Assembly passed a
resolution of monumental importance to the
Palestinian refugees - G.A.
Resolution 194. This year, the 53rd anniversary of
Resolution 194 follows
the conclusion of the one-year anniversary of the
al-Aqsa intifada, in which
the Palestinian refugees have made incomparable
sacrifices in asserting
their fundamental and inalienable rights to be free
from Israel's illegal
occupation and to return to their homes of origin.
These demands are
supported by the entire Palestinian people and
leadership, a fact that is
not surprising considering that nearly three-quarters
of the world's
Palestinians are refugees.
Therefore, upon this occasion of the 53rd anniversary
of Resolution 194, we
urge all interested persons, organizations and
governmental actors to call
for the full implementation of Resolution 194. The
following model letter
can be used to address key actors within the UN
system, including UN
Secretary-General Mr. Kofi Annan, Member States of
the UN (through their
foreign ministries), and key UN agencies and organs (including
the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs. Mary Robinson).
We especially recommend
that letters be sent to member states of the UN
belonging to the European
Union, as well as key states in the non-aligned
movement.
--------------------------------------------------------
Call for Full and Immediate Implementation of G.A.
Resolution 194:
Prerequisite for a Just and Durable Peace in the
Middle East
Your Excellencies:
11 December 2001 marks the 53rd anniversary of the
passing of UN General
Assembly Resolution 194 (1948), the landmark
resolution that reaffirmed the
fundamental, inalienable rights of the Palestinian
refugees - to return,
restitution and compensation.
Resolution 194 did not create new law but rather
affirmed the applicability
of existing binding law to the case of the
Palestinian refugees. Resolution
194 affirmed that three fundamental, inalienable
rights were held
individually by each Palestinian refugee, namely the
rights to: (1) return;
(2) restitution; and (3) compensation. Return was
expressly stated to be "to
their homes," i.e., to their homes of origin in
the territory that later
became the state of Israel. Because return was
expressly stated to be "to
their homes," restitution (i.e., the right to
receive one's property back if
it had been occupied by secondary occupants, looted
or confiscated by a
governmental authority in violation of international
law) was expressly
recognized to be a right held by the Palestinian
refugees. Finally,
compensation was not to be "in lieu of" the
right of return but rather
supplementary to it. Refugees choosing to return were
to be compensated if
their property had been damaged or destroyed.
Refugees choosing not to
return were to be compensated for all their property,
whether damaged or
not.
The comprehensiveness of the rights affirmed in
Resolution 194 demonstrates
that the goal of the international community in
affirming them was to try to
erase the effects of Israel's illegal displacement of
the Palestinian
refugees ("ethnic cleansing") and to do
"restorative justice" by attempting
to put the Palestinian refugees back in the position
they would have been in
had their illegal displacement not occurred. On this
53rd anniversary of
Resolution 194, it is high time to implement the
rights recognized and
affirmed by the international community in 1948. In
the intervening 53
years, the international community has not retreated
one iota from full
recognition of the rights affirmed in Resolution 194.
Therefore, upon this 53rd anniversary of Resolution
194, we hereby call upon
the entire United Nations system - including UN
Secretary- General Mr. Kofi
Annan, UN Member States and all UN agencies/organs (including
the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs. Mary Robinson) -
to undertake the
following measures to implement fully and forthwith
the three fundamental,
inalienable rights of the Palestinian refugees
enumerated in Resolution
194 - return, restitution and compensation:
1. Convene an international conference on mechanisms
necessary to implement
the three fundamental rights affirmed in Resolution
194 - return,
restitution and compensation. Since the rights exist,
practical plans for
implementing them must be designed. Palestinian
refugees themselves must
feature prominently in the decision-making processes
designed to restore
their rights to them.
2. Reinvigorate the UN Conciliation Commission for
Palestine (UNCCP) by
nominating new states to comprise its membership. The
current membership -
composed of the U.S., France and Turkey - is
completely inactive (and, in
the case of the U.S., completely biased).
3. Make public the property and land records of the
UNCCP for inspection by
Palestinian refugees and others, for example to be
used in designing a
mechanism for securing the restitution rights of the
refugees under
Resolution 194.
4. Issue a definitive pronouncement that under
international law, the
ethno-national concept of a "Jewish state"
(i.e., a Zionist state) is
completely prohibited and therefore illegal because
it necessarily involves
discrimination in favor of Jews and discrimination
against non-Jews. Such
state-sanctioned discrimination is prohibited under
the entire corpus of
international human rights law and, indeed, under the
UN Charter (which
Israel, as a member state of the UN, is bound to
uphold).
5. Mandate the creation of an internationally
supported return and
restitution mechanism whereby Palestinian refugees
would be fully restituted
of their properties, with interest calculated from
the date of taking.
6. Call for the imposition of comprehensive sanctions
upon Israel until it
agrees to implement the rights of the refugees under
Resolution 194. This is
a minimum requirement, since Israel's admission to
the United Nations was
expressly conditioned upon its implementation of
Resolution 194. Economic
and military aid to Israel must cease completely
until Israel comes into
compliance with Resolution 194, in order for other
states to avoid being
complicit in Israel's longstanding violation of the
international
law-guaranteed rights of the refugees enumerated in
Resolution 194.
Fifty-three years is far too long to wait for the
implementation of the
fundamental, inalienable rights of a population group
exceeding 5 million
persons. Concrete action to implement the rights of
the Palestinian refugees
is urgently needed now, in order to bring about a
just and durable peace in
the Middle East.
The United Nations system must fulfill its obligation
to uphold
international law!
Resolution 194 must be implemented now!
-------------------------------------------------
For more further information on the rights enumerated
in Resolution 194, see
BADIL Brief #8, "Palestinian Refugees and the
Right of Return: An
International Law Analysis," available at
www.badil.org/Publications/Briefs/Brief8.pdf.
For a longer legal analysis,
see BADIL's legal monograph, "The 1948
Palestinian Refugees and the
Individual Right of Return: An International Law
Anslysis," available 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:
_______________________________________________________________________
top
'We Have No Water for Them to Drink'
As Israel retaliates for the latest suicide bombings,
neighboring Jordan
worries about a destabilizing influx of Palestinians
By Christopher Dickey
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
December 7, 2001
Dec. 5 - Taher Masri is no friend of Yasir
Arafat. In 1991, Masri was the
first prime minister of Jordan to come from
Palestinian territory. He
marveled then, as now, at what he sees as the PLO
leader's self-defeating
duplicity. And Masri makes no excuses for terror. He
and many other members
of the Jordanian establishment, including the late
King Hussein and his son,
the present king, Abdullah, have worked hard for
years to build peace and
prove their good faith to the West and to Israel.
BUT THEY ARE NOW WATCHING the events unfolding
in Israel and the occupied
Palestinian territories with a kind of fatalistic
horror. Their existential
fear: that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's
long-term plan is to force
the Palestinians of the West Bank first into
untenable enclaves, and
eventually into exile. The country most likely to
receive them, at
tremendous cost to its stability, would be Jordan.
Sharon has
said he wants peace with Palestinians, and denies
longstanding allegations that his real goal is to
force them out of the
Biblical Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria-otherwise
known as the West Bank.
But King Abdullah was so concerned about the
deterioration of the situation
there last summer that he briefly closed the bridges
across the Jordan River
as a precaution against a mass exodus to Jordan. Now
the situation is much
worse, but Jordanian officials are reluctant to state
their fears publicly
lest they create a sense of panic.
Masri, no
longer a member of the cabinet, speaks more freely than
those who are still in power. The day after the
suicide bombings by Hamas
that slaughtered 28 people in Jerusalem and Haifa,
but before the Israelis
launched their retaliatory strikes, Masri laid out
what he sees as the
Sharon strategy. His analysis is worth keeping in
mind as we consider what's
happened since, and what is likely to continue
happening for weeks and
months to come.
"Sharon
is working on three levels," says Masri. "The first is to
destroy the tools of the Palestinian Authority (PA),
the police and security
apparatus." At the same time that Sharon demands
Arafat crack down on Hamas
and Islamic Jihad, Israel has in recent months
destroyed 80 per cent of the
PA's police headquarters, according to Masri. Sharon
also places severe
limits on the ability of the PA to send police
reinforcements from one area
to another. The Israelis might well argue that PA
police have turned their
guns on Israeli troops in the past, when the Israelis
have moved into
Palestinian areas. But the cycle of demanding
everything of Palestinian
forces and then preventing them from moving is
self-fulfilling. "You cannot
tie [Arafat's] arms and legs and tell him 'Swim!'"
says Masri. A few hours
after Masri made his comments, Israel's Apache
gunships attacked Arafat's
headquarters compound and blew his helicopters to
bits, thus restricting
even his personal mobility.
The second
aspect of the Sharon strategy, as the Jordanians perceive
it, is to destroy the economic infrastructure of the
Palestinian
territories, which are largely agricultural and,
formerly, touristic. During
Israeli incursions into Bethlehem earlier this year,
for instance, troops
systematically trashed newly built tourist hotels.
Since the beginning of
the new intifada last year, according to Masri, some
350,000 olive and
citrus trees have been cut down or bulldozed.
Thirdly,
says Masri, "Sharon is eliminating-liquidating-the
Palestinian leadership. He is hitting the third rank
now, but he will move
up to the first. Without leadership, without your
economic lifeblood,
without security tools for the PA, the people will be
ready to leave the
country."
And then?
"Terrible things will happen," says Masri, who comes from
one of the wealthiest and most influential families
in the West Bank city of
Nablus. Some 3 million Arabs live in the land that
many Sharon backers call
Judea and Samaria. If they were all to migrate to
Jordan, which has a total
of 5 million people altogether, the social, political
and economic
equilibrium would be shattered. "We have no
water for them to drink," said
Masri, which sounds like a metaphor, but is a literal
fact.
As
everyone in the region knows, actions are more reliable
indicators of intent than rhetoric. Arafat's failure
has been to match his
actions to his words. The same can be said of Israeli
governments that talk
peace while actively colonizing the occupied
territory, says Masri. "This is
the Zionist project: the whole of Palestine is Israel,"
he says. "This is
why they are building settlements." The argument
that the West Bank
settlements are there for military defense supposes
that the 1994 accords
with Jordan, the Arab state that borders the West
Bank, are not really a
treaty of peace; this despite the fact that the
accords have been backed up
by extensive Jordanian intelligence and security
cooperation with Israel.
So why
doesn't Arafat make these arguments? "Arafat will not tell
you, 'I am weak, I am incompetent, I am impotent,'
but he knows that he is,"
says Masri. The people of Jordan think that, too, and
fear that they will
have to pay the price.
© 2001 Newsweek, Inc.
_______________________________________________________________________
top
The Palestine Monitor, A PNGO Information
Clearinghouse
Information Alert
Sharon wreaks further destruction of Palestinian
infrastructure
6 December 2001
Last night, the Israeli army entered and occupied the
office of the
Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) in
Balou'a, Ramallah.
Soldiers destroyed the five floor building and stole
the office's computers,
and with them all information held.
This is an act of collective punishment, and is
demonstrative of Ariel
Sharon's intention to destroy systematically all
Palestinian infrastructure:
on Monday, the Israeli army bulldozed Gaza civilian
airport, the only port
of entry directly into Palestinian territory.
Israeli Minister Ephram Sneh
admitted the extreme audacity of this when he said
that not since World War
2 has any country dared to destroy a civilian airport.
These actions are the facts that expose the Israeli
government's real
intentions: to destroy all that Palestinians have
built up over the last
seven years and with it the potential for a viable
Palestinian state and
peaceful coexistence.
The current Israeli siege of the Palestinian
territories has also further
paralysed the health sector. Dr Mustafa Barghouthi,
President of the Union
of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees estimates
that, due to total
restrictions on movement, 200 Palestinians are unable
to receive kidney
dialysis treatment, and are therefore at risk of
death. Israeli authorities
have also denied access to a further 200 Palestinian
cancer patients in Gaza
who are in need of chemotherapy treatment.
The Israeli siege continues to imprison tens of
thousands of Palestinians in
their own homes, paralysing Palestinian life on every
level. Israel is
exercising its power as occupier to inflict gross
acts of collective
punishment on a civilian population.
For more information, contact Mustafa Barghouthi, 050
254 218 or see
_______________________________________________________________________
top
Ha`aretz
Israel's Leading Newspaper
Wednesday, December 05
Sharon chose the Hamas
By Amira Hass
It's very likely that the young Palestinians who
decided to kill as many
people
as possible by blowing themselves up in the middle of
a large group of young
Israelis and bus passengers, really believed that
heaven was waiting for
them.
But they, like the other suicide bombers, didn't only
see heaven waiting.
They saw the hundreds of dead - including children,
women, and the elderly -
and
the thousands of wounded Palestinians from the past
year.
Despite the prevailing view in Israel, most of those
casualties were not the
result of exchanges of fire between two equally armed
forces but rather a
direct result of a massive, armed Israeli military
presence in the midst of
Palestinian civilian society.
When they strapped on the bombs, they may have also
considered the broad
popular support for their actions and its results.
Most Palestinians want
revenge. They regard the suicide operations as a just
response to the
suffering the Israeli occupation imposes, and not as
the reason for that
suffering and
occupation. Many think that striking fear into the
hearts of the Israeli
public is an appropriate patriotic response to the
fear with which the
entire
Palestinian public has lived for the past year: from
helicopters, planes,
tanks and jeeps positioned at the entrance to
villages and towns and from
which
soldiers also open fire on people trying to get to
schools or to their olive
groves.
At the start of the intifada, there were elements in
Palestinian society,
led by the Fatah, that believed demonstrations inside
the territories,
including
rock throwing at soldiers, would persuade the
Israelis that the occupation
still continued and that only its end would guarantee
stability and peace
for the two peoples.
After a year of unceasing escalation, it seems
they've lost all faith in
their ability to convince Israelis that they are
challenging the occupation.
Therefore, most Palestinians attach no importance to
the fact that the
terrorism is persuading most Israelis that every
Palestinian wants to expel
the Israelis. As for moral opposition to the killing
of civilians: those who
argue that an occupied people should be particularly
concerned with
maintaining
moral standards to make sure its message gets through
clearly to the world,
are
silenced nowadays.
There's no doubt that the people who sent those
youngsters to blow up and be
blown up thought that the mission is to convince the
Israeli public that the
occupation is the root of the evil. Despite the
denials, it seems that the
plotters inside the Hamas - which some polls show is
now more popular than
Fatah - also made their calculations based on
internal Palestinian politics.
Their warnings since the start of the Oslo process
that, despite the
promises of the Palestinian Authority, Israel is not
interested in peace,
now appear
accurate to the Palestinian public. Now, only the
Hamas is managing to
narrow the gap between the number of Palestinian and
Israeli casualties.
That will
be a good dowry when the time comes to take over.
Furthermore, the alienation that the public feels
from the leadership is
only intensifying. A year of intifada hasn't resulted
in any significant
changes
in the PA's management, and it is blamed, among other
things, for lacking
leadership and the ability to make long-term plans.
That's Yasser Arafat's
style, people everywhere are complaining: He doesn't
consult with anyone.
In effect, Arafat's governing style enables everyone
to be a mini-Arafat:
Every organization, every armed person, decides they
know the supreme
Palestinian
interest and represent that interest, so they can
decide to use their
weapons without consulting anyone. That's how the
Popular Front for the
Liberation
of Palestine (PFLP) decided that its activists should
avenge the
assassination
of their leader; that's how the Hamas operates,
indeed, how every Fatah cell
behaves. Israel says Arafat let that happen, indeed
planned it that way,
choosing the "route of terror."
The Palestinians are convinced that Arafat hasn't
changed his support for
"peace as a strategy" and a two-state
solution. They think that the answer
to the question why he didn't foresee the disastrous
results of the
multiplicity of armed groups has more to do with his
one-man management
style than it
does with any "plot" against Israel.
Some believe that if an emergency government
including all the Palestinian
political forces were established to set strategy and
goals, there wouldn't
be anyone to defy the joint decisions. Or, if such a
government was in
place,
punishing those groups that violated that
government's decisions - Islamic
and others - would be viewed as legitimate and not an
attempt to please the
Americans and Israel or as a step taken too late.
An Authority comes, an Authority goes, but the
Palestinian people remain and
will grow a new leadership. It looks like the Israeli
government - its prime
minister and its army - have chosen to vote for the
Hamas.
_______________________________________________________________________
top
From: DCI/PS
For immediate release
5 December 2001
ref: 0030/01
GRAVE SITUATION FOR PALESTINIAN CHILDREN
DCI/PS views with serious concern the grave situation
for Palestinian
children stemming from the heightened Israeli
military siege on the Occupied
Palestinian Territories. Yesterday, 4 December
2001, one Palestinian child
was killed and tens wounded as a result of the
Israeli Air Force's attack on
Palestinian Authority facilities in the Gaza Strip.
Another Palestinian
child died after being denied access to medical
treatment. At the same time,
thousands of Palestinian children are suffering from
Israeli policies of
collective punishment, most prominently the tightened
closure imposed on the
occupied territories on 2 December 2001.
According to information provided to DCI/PS by
physicians treating wounded
children in Gaza and Khan Younis hospitals, 12 year
old, Mohammed Ahmed
Mahmud Abu Mursa, died after being struck by shrapnel
in Gaza City. In
addition, around 35-40 children were hospitalized
from Gaza city and two
from Khan Younis after being struck by shrapnel and
flying debris when
Israeli warplanes fired missiles into the Palestinian
Authority's Force 17
and Preventive Security facilities in the Gaza Strip.
The Israeli air
attack took place in a populated area, at a time when
the streets were
filled with children returning home from school.
Also, yesterday, seven month old Tamer Quzmar from
the village of Isbat
Suleiman, near Qalqilya, died when his parents were
prohibited from passing
through at least two Israeli army checkpoints while
attempting to seek
medical treatment for him. According to DCI/PS
attorney, Khaled Quzmar, a
relative of the deceased infant, Tamer's family tried
for more than one hour
to travel through the checkpoints that restrict
access to Qalqilya. In spite
of the fact that two of the adults travelling
with the child possess
Israeli identity cards, Israeli soldiers refused to
allow their passage.
The Israeli army "firmly denies the claims
regarding harm to Palestinian
children as a result of Air Force strikes in Gaza."
According to a
statement of the IDF Spokesperson, the "strike
was carried out only against
military targets, and not against civilian
targets." Moreover, the
Spokesperson asserted that the allegation of child
injury "is another
deceitful claim in the Palestinian campaign of
incitement and lies." *
DCI/PS wishes to stress that yesterday's events are
representative of the
pattern of Israeli military practice that has become
routine since the onset
of the Intifada in September 2000. The Israeli
authorities repeatedly allege
that Palestinian civilians are targeted by Israeli
military offensives. Any
suggestions that run contrary are dismissed as
propaganda and "deceitful
claims."
Since the beginning of the Intifada, Palestinian
children have suffered
severe violations of their most basic human rights.
At the same time,
Israeli officials have publicly and repeatedly
claimed that Palestinian
children are killed and injured either as a result of
"cross-fire" or
because they have been used as "human shields."
DCI/PS has gone to great
length to highlight the fact that the majority of
Palestinian children, who
have died in the last 14 months, have been killed as
a direct result of
Israeli military presence in the West Bank and Gaza
Strip. They have been
killed while in their homes, walking on the street,
in their schools, etc.
while they were not involved in any form of
confrontation with Israeli
soldiers. They have been killed not only by
regular bullets, but by rubber
coated steel bullets, tank shells, missiles, shrapnel,
tear gas, and as a
result of access to medical treatment, among other
methods.
DCI/PS wishes to stress that if the Israeli
occupation is understood in its
totality, Palestinian civilians (and children in
particular) have been the
continuous targets of Israeli occupation policies.
The occupation and its
effects are encountered on a daily basis by every
Palestinian regardless of
where he or she might live.
What has been amply demonstrated since the beginning
of the Intifada is that
Israel's policies of collective punishment do not
discriminate on the basis
of age, sex or location. When a Palestinian student
finds their school
closed or is unable to reach it because the road is
closed or unsafe or
staff are prevented from reaching the school, then
they are being targeted
by Israeli government policy. When a child's father
loses his job due to the
Israeli closure, then that child has been targeted by
the occupation. When
a child's home is destroyed because of its close
proximity to an Israeli
settlement or military installation, then that child
has been targeted by
the occupation. When a child is injured by shrapnel
from an Israeli military
attack while walking home from school, then that
child has been targeted by
the occupation. If the practical results of Israel's
policies are examined,
then it becomes clear that every Palestinian child is
targeted by and
suffers from Israeli practice in the occupied
territories.
In light of the deteriorating situation on the ground
and official Israeli
statements suggesting further, harsh military
strikes, DCI/PS calls for the
immediate intervention of the international community.
In particular,
DCI/PS urges concerned individuals to contact the
following persons:
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Mrs. Mary Robinson
OHCHR
Tel. +41 22 917 9000
Fax. +41 22 917 9012/9006/9005
E-mail webadmin.hchr@unog.ch
Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon
Office of the Prime Minister
Tel: 972-2-6705555
Fax: 972-2- : 566 4838
Email: pm@gov.il
President, European Commission
(Romano Prodi)
European Commission
200 rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
B-1049 Brussels
Belgium
E-mail: Presidentsregister@cec.eu.int
US President
George Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Phone: ++1-202-456-1414
Fax: ++1-202-456-2461
Email: president@whitehouse.gov
-END-
_______________________________________________________________________
top
From F r e e d o m, 6-12-2001
The following article contains a brilliant analysis
of the situation in
Palestine. It should open our eyes to the real
danger that is threatening
to bring about a fatal blow to the Palestinian
struggle.
This is not the time for finger pointing or entering
into a vicious circle
of squabble on whom to blame. A lot of mistakes
were done by most, if not
all, of the Palestinian political factions and
leaderships.
National Unity based on an agreed upon strategy to
face the danger of
annihilation has never been of an utmost necessity as
it is today. This
cannot be undertaken in public for the obvious
reasons.
All what we hope for is that it is not already too
late for what should had
been in place a long time ago.
BTW, while I agree with the major theme of the
analysis given, I would like
to add that, in my humble opinion, Sharon would not
re-enter the so-called
area A in the West Bank and Gaza. These areas
are still under full control
of Israel. What Sharon will most probably do is
to create a new
"leadership" of collaborators replicating
what he tried to do in 1981 when
he created the village leagues. In spite of the
failure of that effort, the
changing international and local conditions might
have lead Sharon to try
again and there were indicators that this is what's
going on in his mind.
Nizar Sakhnini (6 December 2001)
ISRAEL'S INTENTIONS IN REMOVING ARAFAT
By R.S. Zaharna
It may be time--yet, then it may be too late--for
Israel to confess to its
true intentions in the Palestinian territories. The
sustained and myopic
focus on the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, has
little to do with
stopping "terrorism." What removing Arafat
will do is induce a Palestinian
civil war and, by extension, give Israel a pretext
for re-occupying the
Palestinian territories. The campaign behind this
strategy has been ongoing,
but it has rapidly intensified since the U.S.
military action in
Afghanistan. As the U.S. focuses its efforts on Osama
bin Laden, Israel
appears to be making parallel moves against Arafat.
The collapse of the Camp David talks in July 2000
represented the initial
steps in what has emerged as a sustained campaign
directed at isolating and
removing Arafat from power. The Palestinian leader
himself was reluctant to
attend the talks at Camp David because he knew the
mood among Palestinians
was unfavorable to doing so. Under intense pressure
from Clinton, he did
come to Camp David. Despite repeated American
assurances that the
Palestinian leader would not be held accountable for
potential setbacks,
that is exactly what happened. Arafat was personally
singled out as the
reason for the failure at Camp David. Only months
later did American
officials privy to the talks reveal that it was the
Israeli delegation that
stalled. However, by then the campaign against Arafat
had already taken root
and protests to the contrary fell on deaf ears.
When a new Palestinian uprising began in late
September 2000, again Arafat
was labeled as the instigator of the renewed violence
between the Israelis
and the Palestinians. Analogies were made that, like
a faucet, Arafat could
turn Palestinian violence on and off. The Israelis,
by intensifying focus on
Arafat and Palestinian "violence," were
able to downplay Israel's continuing
military occupation and Palestinian disenchantment
with military occupation
and the peace process that had perpetuated the
occupation. The more Israel
focused on Arafat and Palestinian "violence,"
the more Israel was able to
obscure the brutal realities of its military
occupation.
The shift in Israeli leadership from Ehud Barak to
Ariel Sharon only
intensified the campaign to isolate and remove Arafat
as leader of the
Palestinian Authority. The antagonism between Sharon
and Arafat is not
politically or militarily strategic; it's personal,
going back to his
founding of Unit 101 to eliminate the Palestinian
"fadayeen" in the early
fifties, to his attempts to "pacify" Gaza
in the late sixties, and
culminating in and culminating with the 1982 Israeli
invasion of Lebanon,
where the PLO was headquartered at the time.
What did appear to shift with the emergence of Sharon
to power was the
gradual substitution of Palestinian "violence"
with Palestinian "terrorism."
Undoubtedly terrorism carries much more emotional
weight than violence. If
Barak were fighting a "war," Sharon was
fighting "terrorism." As has been
seen in the U.S. post-September 11, the rules of
engagement and the bounds
of legitimate military action regarding affected
civilian populations become
irrelevant.
By keeping the focus on Arafat and intensifying its
focus through the new
association of "terrorism," Israel was able
to further downplay the role of
its military occupation and the new measures
introduced to control the
Palestinian population. In fact, Israeli actions in
early spring 2001
clearly suggest that Israeli actions to "maintain
security," had a dual,
longer-term, strategic purpose.
First, the Israelis, by cordoning off the major
Palestinian towns from each
other and constructing a network of checkpoints and
trenches, were able to
effectively isolate major segments of the Palestinian
population from each
other. The "power" of the Palestinian
Authority was reduced to noncontiguous
pockets of limited control.
Second, the Israelis began incursions into
Palestinian-controlled
territories, bulldozing areas of land bordering on
jointly controlled
Palestinian-Israeli territory. Again, the pretext was
security; the
Palestinian homes and territory were being used as a
staging ground for
attacks against Israelis. The effect, however,
was that Israel created a
convenient staging ground for itself should it find
it perhaps necessary to
launch a more sustained military attack in the future.
The repeated
incursions into the Palestinian-controlled territory
had the additional
affect of numbing the shock factor of such military
action within
international public opinion.
Third, the Israelis began a direct assault on
Palestinian leaders. The first
assassinations began as early as November 2000. After
initial American and
international pressure, they subsided briefly only to
be renewed with
greater intensity in the late spring. In August,
after extensive reports of
civilian deaths, again the assassinations came under
international
censorship. Then came September 11. The debate, like
other political and
ethical considerations, fell silent.
None of the Israeli tactics have reduced Palestinian
"violence" or increased
Israeli security. In fact, they have had the opposite
effect. The tightened
Israeli control around the Palestinian towns has
paralyzed the Palestinian
economy, creating an increasingly desperate
population. The military
incursions have undermined the Palestinian
Authority's power to protect
Palestinian land or lives, and have systematically
erased the diplomatic
gains from Oslo.
The Israeli assassinations of Palestinian leaders
have emboldened to a new
breed of Palestinian youths, who draw parallels from
the Israeli action,
which to the youths, legitimizes reciprocal
retribution.
What these Israeli tactics have done is perpetuated
the cycle of violence.
However, when viewed from the perspective of the
ongoing campaign to hold
Arafat responsible, all violence-whether Palestinian
or Israeli-becomes
associated with him. This is the beauty of an
effective media campaign. So
long as one can control perceptions through intensify
and downplay
techniques, the reality of the situation on the
ground is meaningless. It
is the perception that matters: Arafat is responsible
for the violence.
The reality on the ground is that Arafat does not and
cannot control
Palestinian suicide bombers or attacks against
Israelis.
Both are the direct result of the continued Israeli
military occupation of
Palestinian territories. So long as the Israeli
occupation continues,
Palestinians will persist in their efforts to end
that occupation, by
whatever means. Israeli settlers and soldiers are
particularly vulnerable to
continued Palestinian attacks because they are viewed
as the means and
instruments of the Israeli occupation.
If the Israeli tactics have intensified Palestinian
resistance, they have
further undermined the Palestinian Authority's
ability to control the
Palestinian population. Logistically, militarily,
politically, and
economically, the Palestinian Authority cannot
protect the Palestinian
population or lands. That loss of the ability to
protect--by the governing
authority of a people--translates into a loss of
legitimacy. Every time the
Israelis attack and the Palestinian Authority is
unable to respond in the
interests of the Palestinian people, the authority
loses legitimacy.
This assessment of Arafat's ability to control the
Palestinian population
and stop Palestinian "violence," has been
spelled out specifically and
repeatedly in intelligence analysis throughout the
Middle East, Europe, and
the United States. Jane's Intelligence Digest, one of
the premiere military
intelligence sources, stated unequivocally "As
JID has warned for months,
Arafat will not be able to deliver because he does
not control the situation
on the ground" ("Middle East Peace?"
June 15, 2001).
If Arafat is not able to "control the violence,"
why is there continued
pressure on him to do so? If one looks at the
campaign strategically, the
end result is the same. So long as Arafat is
perceived as being responsible
for the violence, pressure can be placed on him to
stop the violence.
If Arafat does yield to Israeli and American pressure
to arrest all
Palestinian militants (who are perceived by the
Palestinian population as
legitimately resisting Israeli occupation) Arafat
will be removed from power
and a Palestinian civil war will likely ensue.
However, if Arafat does not
arrest all militants, Israel can continue and even
intensify its tactics
against the Palestinians, eventually removing the
Palestinian leaders
themselves. Again, the result would be a state of
internal instability that
parallels a civil war, requiring Israel to move into
the territories.
Ideally, for the Israelis and the U.S., it is
preferable that the
Palestinian leader be removed through an internal
rebellion from his own
people than if Israel is "forced" to remove
him. However, if Arafat does not
go against his own people, Israel will claim that
because Arafat is doing
nothing to stop Palestinian attacks that Israel has
no choice but to protect
its own security; Israel must remove Arafat. Either
way, Arafat is removed
from power, resulting in a state of instability that
gives Israel the
pretext for reoccupying the Palestinian territories
to insure Israel's
security.
Thus far, Arafat has yielded to the pressures of his
own Palestinian
constituency rather than those from the U.S. and
Israel. Israel is now
facing the least desirable option of removing Arafat
itself. However, the
current American attacks in Afghanistan and focus on
bringing bin Laden to
justice have provided an emotional climate for Israel
to not only take such
action but also legitimize it.
In Israel's assassination policy of targeting
Palestinian "leaders," the
distinction between Palestinian "leaders"
and "leadership" is strategic.
Once it becomes acceptable to systematically target
and assassinate
Palestinian leaders associated with "terrorism"-in
the name of Israeli
security-the leap to targeting and assassinating the
Palestinian leadership,
i.e. Arafat, is not that difficult to make. In recent
days, that leap has
been made.
The comments of Sharon and Bush over the weekend in
the "war on terrorism"
are not seemingly and uncannily similar; they are
identical. Neither
envisions an immediate end to terrorism, but both
have clearly identified
the source and actions needed to fight terrorism. For
Bush, it is Osama bin
Laden. For Sharon, it is Yasser Arafat. And, as Bush
also indicated, the
sooner the better.
_______________________________________________________________________
top
114 states condemn Israelis
By Fiona Fleck in Geneva
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH(LONDON)
December 6, 2001
MORE than 100 signatories of the Geneva Convention
gathered in
Switzerland yesterday to reprimand Israel for "indiscriminate
and
disproportionate violence" against Palestinian
civilians in the
occupied territories.
The 114 states, including Britain and the rest of the
European
Union, issued a declaration urging Israel to abide by
international
laws enshrined in the 1949 accord seeking to protect
civilians in
wartime or under occupation. It was the first such
declaration by
signatory states since the Convention was signed in
1949, as a
similar session was adjourned after 17 minutes in
July 1999. Israel
and its close allies, the United States and Australia,
which are
also signatories of the Convention, boycotted the
session.
The declaration expressed deep concern about a "deterioration
of the
humanitarian situation" in Palestinian areas,
condemned Jewish
settlements there as "illegal" and urged
Israel to refrain from
"grave breaches" such as "unlawful
deportation", "wilful killing"
and "torture".
Yaakov Levy, the Israeli ambassador to the United
Nations in Geneva,
said the declaration was "one-sided".
_______________________________________________________________________
top
From F r e e d o m, 5-12-2001
SHARON'S "FINAL SOLUTION"
In his analysis of the situation in Palestine [A War
of Sharon's Making],
Adam Keller from Gush Shalom stated, "The
government of Israel has
officially and formally declared the Palestinian
Authority and its president
Yasser Arafat to be enemy, and instructed the armed
forces under its command
to actively and aggressively pursue the war by [air],
land, and sea."
He added that, "This is not a random happening.
In fact, it is the logical
culmination of the policies undertaken by Ariel
Sharon ever since he assumed
power in February; and in fact, these are a direct
continuation of Sharon's
policies as Defence Minister in the early 1980's,
when he initiated a
disastrous invasion of Lebanon for the purpose of
destroying the PLO and
expelling Arafat.
"Since becoming Prime Minister, Sharon has been
edging closer and closer to
this all-out war. Mediation efforts and plans
there had been in plenty
throughout Sharon's term. The PM hardly ever rejected
any of them openly.
Rather, he used what so far seems a full proof method:
making a rigid demand
for seven days of "complete and absolute
cease-fire" before any substantive
negotiations can take place, and then making a gross
provocation, just
before the newest cease-fire is about to go into
force.
"What happened a bit more than a week ago was a
particularly effective use
of the technique: a few days before the latest
mediator, the ex-US General
Zinni, Sharon authorized the assassination by
helicopter gunships of Mahmud
Abu Hunud, a Hamas leader prominent and popular
enough to ensure that his
death would be avenged in Hamas' brutal fashion -
particularly since the
assassination took place when Palestinian public
opinion was already
inflamed by the death of five Palestinian children
from an explosive charge
set up by Israeli army sappers (which was, apparently,
an accident).
"The ploy was, in fact, quite obvious. It was
commented on in the media at
the time; the knowledgeable Alex Fishman pointed in
Yediot Aharonot (Nov.
25) that the Abu Hunud assassination broke the tacit
agreement between
Arafat and Hamas not to carry out suicide bombing --
an agreement which had
been in force for several months, and whose existence
may well have saved
dozens of Israeli lives.
"Without access to Sharon's confidential
records, there is no way of
conclusively proving that the PM actually desired
what followed. There is no
doubt that he and his military and intelligence
advisers knew full well what
would result from assassinating Abu Hunud and
nevertheless ordered the deed
to be done. Nor can there be a doubt that Hamas'
grisly revenge, causing the
death of 26 randomly chosen Israelis, was of an
inestimable profit to
Sharon. It gave him the perfect pretext for the
declaration of war upon
Arafat, effectively scuttling the Zinni mission and
letting the Pentagon
hawks gain the upper hand over the State Department
in the administration's
infighting. As a result, Sharon's onslaught upon the
Palestinians got an
unprecedented open backing from Washington.
"Sharon has been trumpeting his new campaign as
"a war on terrorism". But
how can anybody seriously claim that the cause of
"fighting terrorism" can
be furthered by bombing and destroying Yasser
Arafat's personal helicopters,
which anyway never could fly without the Israeli Air
Force's approval? Or by
sending tanks and bulldozers to wreak the runways of
Gaza International
Airport - the airport which was inaugurated three
years ago by President
Bill Clinton in person, and which had been closed
down ever since the
outbreak of the Intifada? Or by again invading
Ramallah, a large portion of
which was just recently occupied by Israeli tanks
without in the least
diminishing the intensity of the Palestinian
rebellion? Or even less, by
systematically targeting and destroying the
installations of the Palestinian
Police and security services - the very apparatus
with which Arafat had just
begun the difficult and delicate task of confronting
Palestinian militants.
Adam Keller ended this logical analysis with the
conclusion, "Seen in the
perspective of an Israeli Prime Minster who is
determined to maintain
Israeli occupation of and settlement in the West Bank
and Gaza Strip, and to
smother any emergent Palestinian statehood, Sharon's
campaign of the last
days makes all too much sense. In which case Sharon
seems to be getting the
Bush Administration's support in destroying what
Secretary Powel described,
just two weeks ago, as the United States' vision for
the region's future: a
viable Palestine living in peace side by side with
Israel." (GUSH SHALOM,
http://www.gush-shalom.org/
Adam Keller, Dec. 4, 2001)
To this wonderful analysis, I would like to add the
following comments:
What Sharon is doing is a continuation of his track
record of war crimes
against the Palestinian people since the creation of
"Israel as the
Exclusive State of the Jewish People". A
pre-condition and an "existential"
necessity for the success of this racist colonial
project is to ethnically
cleanse the country from its indigenous people.
This was done under the
cover of the "self-defense War of Independence",
which was initiated by the
Hagana, Irgun and Stern while the British were still
responsible for law and
order in Palestine in early April 1948 and was
accompanied by gruesome
massacres and atrocities of which Deir Yassin was
neither the first nor that
last in a chain of terrorist attacks against
virtually defenseless
civilians.
Sharon was one of the "heroes" of these
atrocities in "self-defense". Soon
following the creation of Israel, Sharon headed a
special force, "Unit 101
of the IDF, a company of paratroopers", to
prevent the Palestinian Refugees
from "infiltrating" into their homes.
Within this capacity, he committed
the Massacre of Qibya in October 1953 where he
demolished 45 houses. As the
houses were destroyed, house after house, dozens of
women, children, and old
people were crouched in cellars, on upper stories,
and under beds. The
explosions went on for three hours, after which the
unit withdrew to Israeli
territory. On his return, Arik Sharon reported
that the enemy had suffered
ten to twelve fatal casualties. Dayan sent him
a note in his own
handwriting: "There's none like you!"
The following day, the horrifying
truth came out. Seventy corpses were found in
the rubble. The atrocity
aroused worldwide abhorrence. Winston Churchill
sent a personal message to
Ben-Gurion, deploring the operation. On
Ben-Gurion's initiative, a
statement was issued in Israel, and distributed
abroad, to the effect that
the raid had been carried out not by the army, but by
border settlers acting
on their own initiative. Despite Sharett's
objections, Ben-Gurion insisted
vigorously that the army must not admit its
responsibility for the massacre.
Ben-Gurion believed that under certain circumstances,
it was permissible to
lie for the good of the state. But Moshe
Sharett was astounded by his
behavior. He told Zipporah, his wife, that:
"I would have resigned if it
had fallen to me to step before a microphone and
broadcast a fictitious
account of what happened to the people of Israel and
to the whole world".
(Michael Bar-Zohar, Ben-Gurion: A Biography. New York:
Delacorte Press,
1977, pp. 203 - 206)
Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the massacre
committed under his
sponsorship in Sabra and Shatila was another link in
this chain of terror in
a systematic and organized effort against the "existential
demographic
threat" that faces the Zionist Project in
Palestine.
It seems that Sharon wants to keep escalating his
atrocities in an effort to
end his notorious career with a "Final Solution"
to the "demographic
threat". By so doing, he is not only
destructing the Palestinian Authority
and shattering the Palestinian life, but he is
deepening the hatred to such
extent that would make peace an impossibility.
Is this the secure and
peaceful environment that he promised to bring to
those Israelis who are
still chanting "Let the Army Win"?
Nizar Sakhnini
_______________________________________________________________________
top
Hierbij wil ik u attenderen op een interessant debat
in de Rode Hoed op
dinsdag 18 december a.s.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Charles Schoenmaeckers
Aankondiging:
Dinsdag 18 december 2001, 19.30-22.00
Politieke Jongeren doorbreken stilte in Nederlands
Midden-Oosten Debat
Het conflict tussen Israëli's en Palestijnen heeft
inmiddels een hoogtepunt
bereikt. Het alsmaar escalerende geweld en het
stilzwijgen hierover in
Nederland, zijn voor politieke jongerenorganisaties
aanleiding geweest om
zelf een bezoek aan het gebied te brengen. Na een
intensieve reis hebben ze
aanbevelingen gedaan aan de Tweede Kamer en de
Nederlandse regering over de
Nederlandse stellingname in het conflict.
Naar aanleiding van het advies van de Politieke
Jongeren zal er een debat
plaatsvinden met politici uit de Tweede Kamer en
deskundigen in dit
conflict: Van Middelkoop(lid Tweede Kamer voor de
ChristenUnie), Farah
Karimi(lid Tweede Kamer voor GroenLinks), Ronny
Naftaniël(CIDI) en
Lambrecht Wessels(Docent Conflict Studies,
Universiteit van Amsterdam).
Daarnaast zullen de Jongeren zelf in debat gaan met
de zaal over hun
bevindingen en het advies.
Aan de reis namen deel: Dwars(Groen Links),
Perspectief(ChristenUnie),
Jonge Socialisten(PvdA) en het Christen Democratische
Jongeren Appel(CDA).
De reis is een initiatief van Icco - Interkerkelijke
Organisatie voor
Ontwikkelingssamenwerking - en In Spe - Organisatie
voor Jongeren, Dialoog
en Politiek.
Wij nodigen u uit om op 18 december 2001 met ons in
debat te gaan over de
Midden-Oosten conflict.
Het debat zal om 19.30 beginnen in de grote Zaal van
de Rode Hoed aan de
Keizergracht 102 in Amsterdam.
Voor meer informatie of het rapport van de Politieke
Jongeren kunt u bellen
met Khaalid Hassan, op 020-5512292.
Gratis Toegang
Visit http://www.stoptorture.org/
or http://www.amnesty.nl/
and register to
take a step to stamp out torture.
_______________________________________________________________________
top
Uit De Standaard van 27-11-2001
BRUSSEL -- Nieuwe, vertrouwelijke documenten tonen
aan dat de huidige
Israëlische premier, Ariel Sharon, en de toenmalige
legertop rechtstreekse
verantwoordelijkheid dragen voor de slachtpartijen in
de Palestijnse
vluchtelingenkampen Sabra en Shatila in 1982. Dat
zeggen de advocaten van
de overlevenden die in België klacht tegen Sharon
hebben ingediend.
De advocaten Luc Walleyn en Michael Verhaeghe hadden
namens de
Palestijnse overlevenden op 18 juni bij het parket in
Brussel klacht
ingediend tegen Sharon en andere Israëlische en
Libanese verantwoordelijken
voor de
moordpartijen in Beiroet.
Een paar dagen na de indiening van de klacht kregen
de advocaten een pak
documenten in het Hebreeuws en het Engels die in
verband staan met de
Israëlische inval in Libanon in 1982 en met Sabra en
Shatila. Het gaat onder
meer om verslagen van vergaderingen, rapporten van de
inlichtingendiensten
en ondervragingen. De advocaten willen hun bron niet
bekendmaken.
Uit een aantal teksten die De Standaard kon inzien,
valt af te leiden dat de
documenten wellicht oorspronkelijk afkomstig zijn uit
de omgeving van de
Israëlische commissie-Kahan. Die speciale commissie
stelde in 1982 en 1983
een onderzoek in naar de gebeurtenissen in Sabra en
Shatila. Ze publiceerde
een rapport, maar om redenen van het staatsbelang
werden niet alle
documenten en ondervragingen vrijgegeven.
Walleyn en Verhaeghe zijn in ieder geval overtuigd
van de authenticiteit van
de teksten. Ze hebben de hele bundel bezorgd aan
onderzoeksrechter Patrick
Collignon. De advocaten verwachten dat het parket aan
Israël de bevestiging
zal vragen dat de documenten echt zijn.
De nauwe samenwerking tussen de milities van de
Libanese Falange, die de
moordpartijen uitvoerden, en Israël, waren al eerder
bekend, maar volgens de
advocaten tonen verscheidene documenten aan dat Israël
en de Falange de
operatie in de kampen vooraf gepland hebben, dat Israël
de milities totaal
controleerde en dat de Falange achteraf instructies
kreeg van het
Israëlische leger dat ze de schuld op zich moest
nemen. ,,De milities van de
Falange
stonden in de praktijk rechtstreeks onder Israëlisch
bevel. De topgeneraals
en Sharon droegen command responsability voor wat de
milities deden. Volgens
de Belgische en internationale wetgeving zijn ze
strafrechtelijk
verantwoordelijk'', zegt Verhaeghe.
Morgen start voor de kamer van
inbeschuldigingstelling het debat over de
vraag van onderzoeksrechter Collignon of de procedure
tegen Sharon
rechtsgeldig
is.
Een uitspraak wordt eind dit jaar of begin volgend
jaar verwacht.
De advocaten hebben zich ondertussen burgerlijke
partij gesteld tegen Elie
Hobeika, de militieleider die als een van de
hoofddaders van de slachting
wordt gezien. Hobeika was nog niet met naam in de
aanklacht vernoemd. De
advocaten achtten het raadzaam dit nu wel te doen,
aangezien een van de
vragen van Collignon handelt over de juridische
gevolgen van een Libanese
amnestiewet.
Overzicht van de documenten
,,Sabra dierentuin, Shatila parkeerplaats''
27/11/2001
BRUSSEL -- Een overzicht van de documenten over Sabra
en Shatila die De
Standaard kon inzien. De komende dagen publiceert de
krant langere
uittreksels.
,,Besprekingen in het kabinet en ontmoetingen met
Libanese elementen
aangaande de deelname van de Libanese Strijdkrachten
aan de militaire
bewegingen in Libanon.'' Een beknopte inhoud van 30
ontmoetingen en
kabinetszittingen, tussen 16 juni 1982 en 16
september 1982. Het overzicht
illustreert de nauwe betrekkingen tussen de Falange
en Israël. Het plan om
de Libanese Strijdkrachten West-Beiroet te laten
binnentrekken wordt
Operation
Spark genoemd, ,,Operatie Vonk'', een tot nu toe
onbekende benaming.
Vergadering van vertegenwoordigers van de Israëlische
legertop en van de
inlichtingendiensten met Bashir Gemayel en zijn
medewerkers, wellicht op 23
juli 1982. Gemayel wijst op het demografische
probleem dat zal blijven
bestaan nadat het militaire probleem van Beiroet
opgelost zal zijn.
Over de mogelijkheid dat het Israëlisch leger de
Palestijnse kampen zou
binnentrekken, zegt hij dat, als de
vluchtelingenkampen in deze sector
vernietigd zouden worden, het niet veel problemen zou
veroorzaken bij de
islamieten in de rest van de stad.
Vergadering tussen Minister van Defensie Sharon en
Pierre (de stichter van
de Falange en vader van Bashir) en Bashir Gemayel in
het kantoor van Bashir,
21
augustus. Aanwezig zijn onder meer vertegenwoordigers
van de Mossad, de
Israëlische geheime dienst. Pierre Gemayel
verwelkomt Sharon en houdt een
historische bespiegeling. Sharon uit voorzichtige
kritiek op het feit dat de
Falange twee maanden geleden, in juni, de gelegenheid
heeft gemist om ,,de
hoofdstad te bevrijden''. Hij wijst erop dat hij in
Israël onder druk staat
om terug te trekken en resultaten moet laten zien: de
christenen moeten
verklaren dat
ze een vredesovereenkomst met Israël willen sluiten.
Sharon legt er de
nadruk
op dat de Falangisten de gelegenheid moeten grijpen
om de Palestijnse
terroristen aan te pakken. Pierre Gemayel vraagt
geduld tot na de verkiezing
van Bashir,
die twee dagen later zal plaatsvinden.
Daarna spreekt Sharon nog even met Bashir apart.
Sharon vraagt: ,,Wat zullen
jullie doen met de vluchtelingenkampen''. Bashir
antwoordt: ,,We plannen een
echte dierentuin''.
Mossad document 4023, 15 september 1982: vergadering
van Sharon met de
politieke en militaire leiders van de Falange, na de
moord op Bashir. Dit
document wordt vernoemd in het verslag van de
Kahan-commissie: afspraken
voor de coördinatie tussen het Israëlische leger en
de Falangisten.
Dit aspect vormt slechts een beperkt onderdeel van
het verslag. Er worden
vooral politieke zaken besproken: Sharon vreest dat
de politieke situatie
zal omslaan en dat tegenstanders van Israël het
initiatief zullen nemen. De
leiders van de Falange beloven dat ze een wettelijke
basis voor hun
politieke acties
zullen zoeken. Maar wat als dat niet lukt? Sharon:
,,Doe al het mogelijke om
legitimiteit te verkrijgen. Als jullie daar niet in
slagen, zullen we jullie
in ieder geval steunen.''
Uittreksels van uitspraken van Sharon tijdens de
vergadering van het
Israëlische kabinet van 16 september. Sharon geeft
een beschrijving van de
situatie, er
zijn nog altijd 2.000 terroristen in Beiroet. Een
eenheid van de Falange is
zopas
in Sabra binnengetrokken. Geef het Israëlische leger
een paar weken om de
zaak
af te werken, vraagt Sharon.
Vergadering van de Israëlische legertop met
officieren van de Falange, 19
september. Deze vergadering wordt kort beschreven in
het rapport van de
commissie-Kahan. De Israëli's vroegen aan de
Falangisten dat ze zouden
toegeven dat ze de daders waren, zegt het rapport.
Uit dit document blijkt dat de Israëlische generaals
directe richtlijnen
geven over de manier waarop de Falangisten de zaak
moesten voorstellen. De
Falangisten
werken tegen maar zeggen dat ze zullen gehoorzamen:
,,Wat jullie willen, is
dat we de verantwoordelijkheid op ons nemen; in de
huidige politieke
situatie is dat onmogelijk, maar zeg het ons en we
zullen het uitvoeren.''
Getuigenis van een agent van de Mossad op 31 oktober
1982, ,,blijkbaar voor
de Kahan-commissie''. Een verward getuigenis over het
moment waarop de
agent wist dat de Falange de kampen zou binnentrekken
en over het moment
dat hij op de hoogte was van eerste berichten over de
slachtingen.
De agent geeft vooraf een korte samenvatting van het
bezoek van Sharon aan
de familie Gemayel op 15 september. Sharon zag daar
Pierre Gemayel en
Amin, de broer van Pierre en latere president. Sharon
verontschuldigde zich
voor zijn komst, maar zei dat hij moest komen om zijn
verontschuldigingen
aan te bieden en om te spreken over concrete plannen.
Hij praatte over
voortzetting van de steun en erg kort over de Israëlische
beslissing Beiroet
binnen te
trekken. Sharon wees op de noodzaak voor de
Falangisten om deel te nemen
aan deze operatie.
Document met verschillende getuigenissen over de
houding van de Falangisten
tegenover Palestijnen en sjiieten. Onder meer: een
Israëlische kolonel
getuigt over de intenties tegenover Palestijnen van
Falangistische leiders.
,,Sabra
zou een dierentuin worden en Shatila de parkeerplaats
van Beiroet.''
Op een vergadering in juni zou melding zijn gemaakt
van slachtpartijen door
Hobeika en zijn mannen. (mta)
Documenten ogen coherent
(mta)
27/11/2001
BRUSSEL -- Zijn de documenten over Sabra en Shatila
die de advocaten Luc
Walleyn en Michael Verhaeghe toegeschoven kregen,
authentiek? Zonder
bevestiging van Israëlische kant, is een absoluut
oordeel niet mogelijk.
Maar er zijn wel verschillende aanwijzingen die
pleiten voor echtheid.
Walleyn en Verhaeghe kregen een pak papier binnen van
wel 15 centimeter dik:
fotokopieën van documenten in het Hebreeuws en van
Engelse vertalingen. Het
geheel is weinig gestructureerd. Van sommige teksten
zijn er versies in
beide talen, van andere stukken alleen in het
Hebreeuws of Engels. De
advocaten
moesten zelf hun weg vinden.
Alle teksten hebben betrekking op de Israëlische
invasie in Libanon in 1982
of op de moordpartijen in Sabra en Shatila. Uit de
documenten die De
Standaard
kon inzien, blijkt dat er een duidelijke band is met
de commissie-Kahan, die
in 1982 en 1983 in Israël een onderzoek instelde
naar de omstandigheden van
de
moordpartijen.
Zo is er een ondervraging van een lid van de Mossad
,,blijkbaar voor de
Kahan-commissie''. Er wordt in die tekst verwezen
naar een bewijsstuk
waarvan het
nummer ook te vinden is in het gepubliceerde rapport
van de commissie. Ook
de inhoud van andere documenten is in sommige
gevallen terug te vinden in
samenvattingen in het rapport.
Tussen de teksten bevinden zich lijsten met
opsommingen van documenten,
verslagen of uittreksels van kabinetszittingen,
verslagen van bijeenkomsten.
Van twee verslagen wordt expliciet gezegd dat de
Mossad ze heeft opgesteld.
Het vermoeden rijst dat alvast een deel van de
Hebreeuwse documenten
afkomstig is van een persoon of personen die in nauw
contact stond(en) met
de Kahan-commissie of met de staf. Het materiaal is
door een derde persoon
blijkbaar geselecteerd en gerangschikt.
Die had blijkbaar ook een niet-Israëlisch publiek op
het oog: daarop wijzen
de -- niet altijd vlekkeloze -- vertalingen in het
Engels. Het was misschien
de
bedoeling om een rechtszaak tegen Sharon en anderen
voor te bereiden. De
advocaten willen in ieder geval niets kwijt over de
bron. Zij kregen kort na
de indiening van de klacht een telefoontje met de
vraag ,,of zij
geïnteresseerd
waren'' in de documenten en ontvingen kort daarop een
pakket met de
teksten.
Of de teksten authentiek zijn en teruggaan op
originele vertrouwelijke
documenten, kan alleen de Israëlische overheid met
zekerheid bevestigen. In
Israël zelf gaan trouwens steeds meer stemmen op dat
het na bijna twintig
jaar tijd is dat ook de geheime documenten van de
Kahan-commissie openbaar
worden gemaakt.
In ieder geval ogen de teksten inhoudelijk en formeel
authentiek. De
Hebreeuwse teksten zijn in een lettertype getypt dat
in het begin van de
jaren tachtig gebruikelijk was. De vermelde namen
zijn in de meeste gevallen
bekend uit andere bronnen, bij voorbeeld namen van
Israëlische agenten of
namen van
voormannen van de Falange.
De beschreven gebeurtenissen en vergaderingen komen
overeen met wat
hierover geweten is, op een aantal punten zijn er
nieuwe elementen. De
advocaten wijzen erop dat het geheel kort na de
indiening van de klacht in
de bus viel: er kan dus geen sprake van zijn dat het
dossier
,,geprepareerd''
is met het oog op de gerechtelijke procedure in België.
Wat ook pleit voor de authenticiteit, is het feit dat
er eigenlijk geen
spectaculaire dingen instaan. Er is geen ,,smoking
gun'' die rechtstreeks op
de schuld van Sharon wijst. Het gepubliceerde rapport
van de
Kahan-commissie:
_______________________________________________________________________
|
|
|