_______________________________________________________________________
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
* Sharon wreaks further destruction of Palestinian infrastructure, 6-12-2001
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
* SHARON'S "FINAL SOLUTION"

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 IsraŽlische
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
www.badil.org/Publications/Legal_Papers/RoR48.pdf.
-------------------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________________________________

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
http://www.msnbc.com/news/NW-front_Front.asp

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
www.palestinemonitor.org
_______________________________________________________________________

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

* Source: http://www.idf.il/english/announcements/2001/December/4.stm#4

-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 IsraŽli'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 NaftaniŽl(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
IsraŽlische 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 BelgiŽ 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 IsraŽlische 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
IsraŽlische 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
IsraŽlische 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 IsraŽl de bevestiging
zal vragen dat de documenten echt zijn.

De nauwe samenwerking tussen de milities van de Libanese Falange, die de
moordpartijen uitvoerden, en IsraŽl, waren al eerder bekend, maar volgens de
advocaten tonen verscheidene documenten aan dat IsraŽl en de Falange de
operatie in de kampen vooraf gepland hebben, dat IsraŽl de milities totaal
controleerde en dat de Falange achteraf instructies kreeg van het
IsraŽlische leger dat ze de schuld op zich moest nemen. ,,De milities van de
Falange
stonden in de praktijk rechtstreeks onder IsraŽlisch 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 IsraŽl. 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 IsraŽlische 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 IsraŽlisch 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
IsraŽlische 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 IsraŽl onder druk staat
om terug te trekken en resultaten moet laten zien: de christenen moeten
verklaren dat
ze een vredesovereenkomst met IsraŽl 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 coŲrdinatie tussen het IsraŽlische 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 IsraŽl 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
IsraŽlische 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 IsraŽlische leger een paar weken om de
zaak
af te werken, vraagt Sharon.

Vergadering van de IsraŽlische legertop met officieren van de Falange, 19
september. Deze vergadering wordt kort beschreven in het rapport van de
commissie-Kahan. De IsraŽli's vroegen aan de Falangisten dat ze zouden
toegeven dat ze de daders waren, zegt het rapport.

Uit dit document blijkt dat de IsraŽlische 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 IsraŽlische 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 IsraŽlische 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 IsraŽlische 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:
fotokopieŽn 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 IsraŽlische 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 IsraŽl 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-IsraŽlisch 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
geÔnteresseerd
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 IsraŽlische overheid met zekerheid bevestigen. In
IsraŽl 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 IsraŽlische 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 BelgiŽ.

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:
Zie http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ign0"
_______________________________________________________________________

top

 

vorige pagina