|
|
|
|
|
______________________________________________________________________
NPK-info 25-07-2004- Nederlands Palestina Komitee / www.palestina-komitee.nl
______________________________________________________________________
UN calls for Israel to tear down wall, Guardian, July 21
Zie hierna: Just Say No to Vetoes, Gregory Khalil
Daily murder, destruction and resistance
-
7
-
ffice.htm
And Israel bans peace-activists; this time Christine Grefer [NL]
and Jamie
Spector [USA].
Hierna
- Gaza homeland: another generous offer? Mustafa Barghouthi,
July 03, 2004
- Sharon's Phony Disengagement, Ronald Bleier, June 2004
http://desip.igc.org/desip/Sharon'sPhonyDisengagement.html
- Updated map of Israel's Wall in the Northwest Palestinian
Jerusalem
- The conflict in Palestine: Illusions of peace and the need for
effective
resistance
Nizar Sakhnini, 20 July 2004
- The story TV-news won´t tell
The EU's relations with Israel [business as usual]
- Agreement reached on participation in the GALILEO programme
- ".... Galileo satellite navigation project, a rival to a
U.S. system
with wide military and civilian uses...."
- "Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot, at the signing ceremony
as his
country holds the rotating presidency of the EU, had warned
Israel on Monday
that further EU aid to Israel would depend on better cooperation
from the
Jewish state." Aid to ...... ??
NPK/WL, 25-7-2004
______________________________________________________________________
NYT/IHT July 19, 2004
Just Say No to Vetoes
By GREGORY KHALIL
The United Nations General Assembly is likely to vote this week
to demand
that Israel comply with the ruling of the International Court of
Justice and
dismantle its wall under construction in the West Bank. The
court's opinion
marks a milestone in the Palestinian struggle. Yet its greatest
impact may
not be on Israel or its occupation of Palestinian territory. By
calling on
nations around the world to enforce international human rights
law when
enforcement is vetoed by a permanent member of the United
Nations Security
Council, the court has essentially affirmed a power to "veto the
veto."
The significance of this ruling cannot be overstated. The
Security Council
is generally considered the only United Nations body with the
authority to
enforce international law. Yet the council is often prevented
from taking
action by its permanent members, who can veto any council
resolution. The
result is that the United Nations is often impotent in the face
of
international crises. The court's opinion, however, has the
potential to
restore the United Nations to a position of authority and could
transform
international diplomacy.
In recent years, the international community has criticized the
United
States for abusing its veto power in the Security Council. The
United States
has vetoed 79 Security Council resolutions, almost half of them
cast on
Israel's behalf. Not surprisingly, states have accused the
United States of
hijacking the United Nations by using, or threatening to use,
its veto
power: support American policy, the United States seems to be
saying, or
risk turning the United Nations into a debate club.
This fear materialized with the diplomatic failure leading up to
the
invasion of Iraq. Because the United States has significantly
more political
leverage than any other nation, it was able to carry out its
campaign
against Iraq without real cooperation from the United Nations.
So what does this have to do with the International Court of
Justice or
Israel's wall? The court said it had jurisdiction in part
because the United
States had frustrated the Security Council's work. Israel's
actions
constitute a "threat to international peace and security,"
according to the
court, and in such instances, the Security Council must act. But
the
Security Council had been prevented from acting, the court said,
by American
vetoes.
In unanimously holding that it had jurisdiction, the court
reasserted a
significant power in the General Assembly: when the Security
Council fails
to act because of a permanent member's abuse of veto power, the
General
Assembly may do so, including asking the court's advice.
But in determining that all sections of Israel's wall built in
occupied
Palestinian territory (including East Jerusalem) must be
dismantled, the
court delivered even stronger pronouncements. First, "the United
Nations,
and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council,
should
consider what further action is required to bring to an end the
illegal
situation resulting from the construction of the wall." Second,
all nations
"are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation
arising from
the construction of the wall, and not to render aid or
assistance in
maintaining that situation." In short, Israel is not above the
law - and
international law obligates every nation to ensure Israel's
compliance with
the law.
Taken together, these holdings chart a path for the
international community
to counter the United States' veto power. Although the opinion
was
nonbinding (the court cannot compel enforcement), the court
emphasized that
the law upon which its opinion is based does indeed bind.
This sends a strong message to the United States: either refrain
from
obstructing the rule of law with your veto, or risk alienation
from
mainstream global opinions and forums. Once other powers engaged
the United
States in a tango of mutual deterrence; now, suggests the court,
the rule of
international law should play that role.
Critics may say that the court abandoned judicial discretion for
geopolitical posturing. Quite the contrary. Had it agreed with
the American
position that it lacked jurisdiction, the court would have
risked its own
integrity by ruling against the weight of international law. And
these
broader implications of the judgment should not obscure its
primary
significance: a just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict based on
the affirmation of fundamental human rights.
Rather, the advisory opinion represents a triumph for Israelis
and
Palestinians alike. By rejecting Israel's construction of the
wall, the
court emphasizes the humanity of both peoples. Yes, Israel may
build a
wall - but only on its own territory. Yes, a just resolution to
the broader
conflict is possible - but only within the confines of
international law.
Nevertheless, in denouncing one wall, the court suggested
another: a limit
on the unbridled use of American diplomatic power. The world
should take
advantage of this opportunity to move in a new direction - one
in which law,
and not the politics of force, prevails.
Gregory Khalil is a legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation
Organization.
______________________________________________________________________
Gaza homeland: another generous offer?
Does Sharon have an ace up his sleeve - and who will he blame
when the
pullout fails?
Mustafa Barghouthi, July 03, 2004
5846
Returning from the failed Camp David summit in 2000,
Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Barak first coined the mantra that has become the
cornerstone
of Sharon's and successive intermediate Israeli governments -
"We have no
partner for peace."
Citing this habitual mantra, Premier Ariel Sharon
announced in
February that Israel, with no credible negotiating partner, was
now forced
to take unilateral steps to break the stalemate that gripped the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In the months since, however, the rhetoric surrounding
Sharon's
unilateral disengagement has changed. Initially announcing an
immediate,
unprecedented withdrawal from all settlements and military
installations in
Gaza, the Israeli political cavalcade between then and June 6
has not only
produced a reworked and vague protracted plan, it has also
unravelled the
packaging of a scheme which will see the implementation of an
equally harsh
system of control over Gaza, as exists currently under
occupation.
Thus while the language may have changed, the plan itself,
one could
argue, has never palpably altered. Once again the most critical
junctures of
the conflict are being played out through a battle of narrative,
and Israel
is fostering misunderstanding. "Withdrawal" is not only proving
hard to
juxtapose with continued events on the ground, it is
contradicted by the
decisions of the Israeli government - which has yet to authorize
the
slightest settlement evacuation. The Israeli government's
various factions
are, on the contrary, preoccupied with sustaining strict Israeli
control
over Palestinian borders, territorial waters, airspace and
international
relations.
What is more, all evidence suggests that in the event of
any pullout,
the Palestinian residents of Gaza will remain under siege. The
existing
system of tight restrictions on the movements of Palestinian
goods and
people will remain intact - or worsen - should Israel also
decide to cut
labor flows or terminate electricity and water supplies. Should
this be the
case, the World Bank predicts that the disengagement plan can
only further
intensify the economic squeeze on the 1.3 million inhabitants.
With internal closures only partly eased, and with the
external border
regime unchanged, the disengagement plan cannot in any light be
seen as a
withdrawal from the Palestinian territory of Gaza.
If indeed Sharon's intentions are not to withdraw from
Gaza, his
rhetoric has proven an exceptional decoy to the media and
international
community, distracting attention from Israel's construction of
the
separation barrier through the West Bank - perhaps the more
significant
element of Sharon's plan.
The wall's continued construction, under the guise of
Israeli
security, is a pretext for the creeping annexation of West Bank
land and a
unilateral determination of the border. The Israeli government
has for the
first time made clear its intentions to annex further large
parts of the
West Bank, including large Israeli settlement blocks, openly
declaring these
intentions via a government resolution - rashly described by
international
observers as an opening for peace.
Israel is looking to find legitimacy for this annexation
by dressing
up its Gaza redeployment as a "painful concession." The move is
a "one-off"
on Sharon's part, intended to pacify the international
community, rebuff
additional territorial pressures and leave Israel in control of
over half
the West Bank.
The Gaza disengagement is far from a move toward peace.
Sharon clearly
intends the plan to facilitate a deeper and more irreversible
Israeli
consolidation of its occupation. And he appears to have hit the
jackpot.
His objective of creating facts on the ground, to then be
recognized
as such, has been enhanced to no end by George W. Bush's
government support
of these Israeli designs to take 58 percent of the West Bank.
The letter of reassurances offered by the United States to
Israel on
April 15 made clear the US had made a massive about turn in
policy. In a
complete abandonment of international law and an appropriation
by the US of
the role of negotiator on behalf of the Palestinians, Bush
canceled UN
resolutions that gave Palestinians the right of return, the
right to
establish a Palestinian state and the right to end the
occupation, at the
same time sanctioning further illegal Israeli settlement
expansion over
two-thirds of the West Bank.
Furthermore, unlike the planned settlement pullout from
Gaza, this is
an area where no holds are barred. The construction of the wall,
and
continued settlement expansion, goes on day and night.
The Gaza pullout will be a much lengthier process. The
June 6 vote did
not authorize any settlement evacuation. Differences in opinion
within the
Israeli Cabinet have not been resolved, merely postponed. While
the Cabinet
approved the reformed plan, which will now take the shape of
redeployment in
four phases, no final decisions were made to evacuate any
settlements. After
completing the preparations for withdrawing from the
settlements, the
Cabinet will then reconvene to decide whether to evacuate them,
how many and
at what pace. Implementation will be largely conditional on
Palestinian
performance with security issues. The sole judge of the
progress, of course,
will be Israel. While refusing to entertain the idea of
negotiations with
Palestinians, the Israeli government remains happy to condition
the
implementation of their unilateral acts upon Palestinian
behavior.
One could not be faulted for suspecting Sharon has an ace
up his
sleeve. Just as Ehud Barak pinned a significant element of his
"generous
offer" to an Israeli referendum and 10 months of political
manoeuvring to
then blame the system of Israeli domestic politics for any
stalemate, Sharon
has subjected his own plan to be stretched out over a period of
time, with
each stage subject to government approval - by which time the
wall will be
long past completion.
Having pulled off such a heist, and claiming an extra 58
percent of
the West Bank under the legitimacy of giving up Gaza, the only
card left for
Sharon to play is that which will save his own career. He may
well succeed
in annexing half the West Bank, but his pullout will have been a
political
failure. What better way to bypass this than to blame the
Palestinians?
This could very well be Sharon's next move. Seeming to
pacify another
element of his crumbling coalition by removing the unilateral
element of the
disengagement, Sharon needs now only present this redeployment,
ghettoization of Gaza and annexation of 58 percent of the West
Bank to the
Palestinians as another "generous offer."
The sure Palestinian rebuttal of an incongruous,
diminutive and
besieged Bantustan as a proxy state would play directly into the
hands of
Sharon in the ongoing Israeli propaganda battle to deny the
existence of a
Palestinian partner for peace.
Mustafa Barghouthi is secretary-general of the Palestinian
National
Initiative. He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star
Copyright (c) 2004 The Daily Star
______________________________________________________________________
THE CONFLICT IN PALESTINE:
ILLUSIONS OF PEACE AND THE NEED FOR EFFECTIVE RESISTANCE
Peaceful co-existence is possible between Moslems, Christians
and Jews.
Such an existence was a reality before Zionism was introduced.
Palestine,
in particular, and its surrounding Middle Eastern Arab
countries, in
general, was always the home for an inclusive and tolerant
multi-ethnic and
multi-cultural community. Such a peaceful co-existence,
however, is
impossible with a colonial settlement embedded with racist
ideological
foundations. Accordingly, all peace efforts and initiatives to
resolve the
conflict have failed for a simple reason: Zionism is in denial
of
Palestinian reality and rights. Exclusivity of the Jewish State
is
irreconcilable with a peaceful co-existence with the native
people of
Palestine. The illusive "peace process" was used to buy time
during which
more lands were stolen, more settlements were built on these
stolen lands,
and more war crimes were committed to push the Palestinians into
despair and
surrender to the Zionist diktat. Until Israeli Jews decide to
come to terms
with the Palestinian reality and admit the crime committed
against the
Palestinian people and correct the wrong done, Palestinians are
left with no
other alternative but to continue with their resistance to the
racist
colonial project.
Implementation of the Zionist project in Palestine started even
before the
1st ZC was held in 1897. The first wave of Jewish colonial
settlers began
to arrive in Palestine as of 1882. These early birds were
sponsored by the
precursor of the ZO, Hovevi Zion, which was founded by Leo
Pinsker and
others including Ahad Ha'am.
Efforts of these early settlers to buy lands and expel the Arab
fellahin
(peasants) earning their living from working on these lands
provoked
immediate reaction from the fellahin.
The first signs of Palestinian resistance were a direct and
spontaneous
reaction to the behavior of the pioneer colonial settlers.
Their efforts to
dispossess and displace the Arab fellahin were provocative and
led to
violent confrontations. (For details of Palestinian resistance
at this early
stage of the conflict, see: Rashid Khalidi, "Palestinian
Identity: The
Construction of Modern National Consciousness", New York:
Columbia
University Press, 1997)
Palestinian resistance at this stage was limited. It took wider
and
national dimensions during the British Mandate. Appeals,
demonstrations of
protest and strikes were a characteristic feature of life in
Palestine
during the British Mandate. Some of these protests turned
violent as in
1920, 1921, and 1929 and during the rebellion, which broke out
in 1936 and
lasted until 1939 when it was brutally crushed by the British.
Commissions
of Inquiry were appointed following each of the violent riots
with a
"Statement of Policy" being issued following the appointment of
each
Commission. (Sami Hadawi. "Bitter Harvest: A Modern History of
Palestine",
New York: Olive Branch Press, 1989, p. 51)
In February 1939, Britain convened a round-table conference in
London to
discuss a peaceful resolution to the conflict. No agreement was
reached.
After a period of abortive efforts, the British government
finally decided,
in February 1947, to refer the task of finding a solution to the
General
Assembly of the UN.
On 29 November 1947, the UN issued resolution # 181 dividing
Palestine into
two states: one for the Arabs and the other for the colonial
settlers.
Following the declaration of Israel and Al-Nakba of 1948,
Palestinian
resistance developed to adapt to the new developments. The Arab
Higher
Committee (AHC), which was formed in 1936 to assume overall
Palestinian
leadership of the revolution and to coordinate the activities of
the various
nationalist parties during the 1936 rebellion, became
ineffective.
In September 1948, the AHC announced the establishment of an
all-Palestine
government in Gaza. A Palestinian National Council sponsored by
the
all-Palestine Government met in Gaza and elected the Mufti, Hajj
Amin
Husayni, head of the AHC, as its president and named a cabinet.
On October
1, 1948, the all-Palestine government issued a Palestinian
"Declaration of
Independence". The government later moved to Cairo and proved
to be a
complete failure. It was as helpless and powerless as the
Palestinian
people were. It reflected the loss, weightlessness, and
aimlessness of the
Palestinian people and was unable to do anything at the time.
After a period hopelessness, a number of Palestinian movements,
advocating
armed struggle to free Palestine, began to appear. These
movements
included, among others: Fatah, which was established in January
1959; the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which was
established
in 1967; the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine
(DFLP), which
seceded from the PFLP in 1969; Hamas (The Islamic Resistance
Movement),
which was founded in 1988; and Jihad al-Islami (Islamic Jihad),
which broke
away from the Muslim Brotherhood movement in the 1980's.
In January 1964, Egypt proposed an independent Palestinian
entity in the
form of a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Ahmad al
Shukairy, who
was part of the AHC during the British Mandate in Palestine, was
appointed
to do the job. Under his chairmanship, Shukairy held a meeting
in Jerusalem
in May 1964, which was attended by 422 Palestinian national
figures. The
meeting laid down the structure of the Palestine National
Council (PNC), the
PLO Executive Committee, the National Fund and the Palestine
Liberation Army
(PLA) as well as approving a Palestinian National Covenant and
Basic Law.
The PLO became an umbrella organization for the various
Palestinian
movements and was recognized by the UN General Assembly on 14
October 1974
(resolution # 3210) and gained the status of an observer.
As the militant groups grew stronger, and as a consequence of
the
devastating results of the 1967 war, Shukairy resigned as
chairman of the
PLO on 24 December 1967 and Fatah took over. Yasser Arafat
became the
chairman of the PLO. He accompanied Gamal Abdul Nasser in a
visit to the
USSR on August 1968 and was introduced to the USSR leadership as
a leader of
a National Liberation Movement.
The Palestinians, so far, have failed to stop the creation of an
exclusive
Jewish state. However, this does not mean success for the
Zionist
establishment. Their dream of an Exclusive Jewish State in all
of
Palestine, with unspecified parts from the neighbouring
countries,
ethnically cleansed from its indigenous population began to
evaporate
following their expansion in 1967. Their failure to replicate
an exodus
similar to what happened in 1948 resuscitated the demographic
nightmare for
Israel.
Sharon came to power with an agenda of ending the Intifada and
completing
the job that was not finished in 1948 and 1967. (See: Interview
with
Sharon: Sharon is Sharon, By Ari Shavit, published in Ha'aretz
on 12 April
2001) The war against Iraq gave Sharon a cover to press on with
his agenda
with more oppressive measures, brutality and war crimes.
While Sharon is going on with his all-out war against the
Palestinians, the
Palestinian leadership is still obsessed with a resumption of
the "peace
process" that would keep them in power. Unfortunately, this is
playing into
Sharon's hands and providing him with a life savor. The latest
developments
in Gaza are a testimony to the bankruptcy of the current
Palestinian
leadership and the need for a new strategy in the struggle for
liberation.
Nizar Sakhnini, 20 July 2004
______________________________________________________________________
|
||
