Tag: Palestine

  • Mairead Maguire’s 10-Year Deportation from Israel

    Press Release – 8th October, 2010

    Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire was deported from Israel at 4 a.m., on Tuesday 5th October, 2010 and arrived back in Belfast later that afternoon. Maguire had arrived in Israel on Tuesday 27th September, to attend a Nobel Women’s Initiative visit, and support those working in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories – particularly women groups – for human rights and justice.

    On arrival she was detained in Ben Gurion Detention Centre, Tel Aviv. The Israeli security tried to forcefully deport Maguire the following day but she peacefully resisted sitting quietly on the tarmac beside the plane refusing to be forcefully deported. The KLM pilot refused to allow her to be forcefully taken on by Israeli guards, so she was taken back into detention, where she remained for seven days in solitary confinement under harsh conditions causing her to be hospitalized at the end of a week. During the seven days she had three court appearances to appeal her conviction of 10-year deportation from Israel.   

    At the Supreme Court appeal, Maguire spoke to the three judges saying that she loved the Israeli and Palestinian peoples and was saddened by their suffering. However, she insisted that peace will not come to Israel until the Israeli government end Apartheid. She also made in the Supreme Court an appeal, through the media, for the Israeli government to end apartheid and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.

    On arriving home Maguire said:

    “I am sorry to be deported for 10 years from Israel and have asked my attorney, Adalah, to challenge this order on my behalf, as I very much wish to return to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories to support all those working for change.   I do not feel I have been treated justly by the Israeli Court.  In June 2010, I and my colleagues on the “Rachel Corrie” boat were illegally hijacked in international waters by the Israeli navy, whilst trying to break the siege of Gaza and bring humanitarian aid to people suffering under illegal collective punishment by Israel.  I am not a criminal and ask, “How can I be deported from Israel when I had been taken at gunpoint and forced to come to Israel against my will in June, 2010?” I wish the three Supreme Court judges had been braver and upheld their proposal to the Israeli state prosecution that I be allowed to stay for a few days and join the NWI. However, they showed how little independence the Israeli judiciary have, and obeyed the Israeli security authorities that were determined to uphold my 10-year deportation from Israel, a form of silencing those who are critical of Israeli policies.

    “Sadly also, the Israeli media were very selective and negative regarding me, carrying misrepresentations such as reporting that I was in a plane and shouting and creating a scene, clearly Israeli propaganda against me. In truth I went to Israel in good faith, with nothing but love for Israelis and Palestinians, and wishing a good future for both peoples to live in justice and peace.   Being a voice critical of the Israeli government policies does not make me an enemy of Israel or her people, but an upholder of an ethic of human rights and nonviolence, and a believer that peace is possible between both peoples when justice reigns. It is my sincere hope that I can return to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories to meet my friends soon again.”

  • Nuclear Dangers and Opportunities in the Middle East

    Iran’s uranium enrichment program has drawn much criticism, and there has been talk in both Israel and the United States of possible attacks against Iranian nuclear facilities.  The drift toward a military solution seems to be gathering an alarming momentum, with little public discussion of alternative approaches in the mainstream US media.  There would likely be very heavy costs associated with carrying out such attacks.

    Iranian leaders have a variety of instruments available for retaliation, and there is little reason to think that these would not be used. It is highly probable that Israel would be attacked in response by Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which have the capabilities to inflict serious damage. Even more damage could be done by Iran itself, which is developing long-range delivery capacities by way of advanced missile technology and a type of bomb-carrying drone aircraft.   

    There exists also the Iranian option to block passage through the Strait of Hormuz through which two-thirds of the world’s imported oil travels, undoubtedly producing supply shortages, a spike in prices, long gas lines in countries around the world, and global economic chaos.  Beyond this, there are a variety of unresolved conflicts in the region that could be easily inflamed by Iranian interventions, most obviously Iraq.   

    Attacks against Iran, as a non-defensive recourse to force, would violate international law and the UN Charter. Force is only lawful in international conflict situations if used as self-defense in response to a prior armed attack. The core Charter commitment in Article 2(4) prohibits threats as well as uses of force.  By that standard, both Israel and the United States, by their threats alone, may already be viewed as law-breakers.  The actual use of force would leave no doubt.

        A far better option than attacking Iran would be attempting to negotiate a Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone. There is widespread support for this initiative among the governments in the region and the world.  It was a priority goal agreed to by consensus at the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.  But there is one large catch that has so far been a decisive inhibitor: Israel is unalterably opposed, as the establishment of the zone would require Israel to dismantle its own nuclear weapons arsenal.

    Obviously, the idea of a Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone has little regional appeal if it does not include Israel.  Israel’s insistence on retaining nuclear weapons while being ready to wage a war, with menacing repercussions, to prevent Iran from acquiring such weaponry is expressive of the deeply troubling double standards that are an overall feature of the nonproliferation regime.

    A Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone would immediately improve overall regional stability and, as well, take account of the prospect of many Arab countries poised to embark on nuclear energy programs of their own. Indeed, without such a zone, there is a substantial possibility of a regional nuclear arms race that would tempt countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, as well as Iran, to have the supposed deterrent benefits of a nuclear arsenal.

    A Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone that includes all the countries of the region is an issue that demands U.S. leadership.  Only the United States has the leverage and stature to bring the diverse cast of regional actors to the negotiating table to make the needed effort to avert war. There can be no advance assurances that such a diplomatic initiative would succeed, but to fail to try would be lamentable.

  • Choose Peace – End the Siege of Gaza

    Choose Peace – End the Siege of Gaza and the
    Occupation of Palestine

    On Saturday June 5, 2010, thirty-five heavily armed Israeli Navy Seals
    commandeered our boat, the MV Rachel Corrie, one of the Freedom Flotilla, in international
    waters (30 miles off the coast of Gaza). 
    As they did so, we eighteen humanitarian activists and crew, sat on the
    deck.  We were quietly anxious, aware of the solitary figure in the
    wheelhouse with his hands held high against the window. He was in full view of
    the three Israeli warships, four approaching zodiacs and two commando carriers,
    whose guns were pointing in his direction.  I personally wondered if the
    courageous Derek Graham would live to tell the tale, conscious of what happened
    on the Turkish ship, Mavi Marmara, earlier in the week.

    On Monday May 31, 2010, we heard via satellite phone that the Israeli
    Commandoes had boarded the Turkish Ship, MV Mavi Marmara, in international
    waters from a helicopter and Zodiacs killing and injuring many people.  It
    was later confirmed that eight unarmed Turkish civilians and one Turkish-American
    civilian were shot (two were shot in the head and several were shot in the back).
    During Israel’s attack, which
    injured over forty people, all six boats on the Freedom Flotilla were commandeered
    by the Israeli Navy and were taken to back Israel.  

    The killing of unarmed civilians was unexpected and devastating news to us all. Everyone
    participating in the Freedom Flotilla was there because they were moved by the people
    of Gaza
    suffering.  The people aboard the Freedom Flotilla were not terrorists;
    they were human beings who cared for others who were suffering.  Gaza is land locked and
    sea locked as its port has been closed since the Israeli occupation. If the
    Free Gaza Rachel Corrie cargo boat had been able to enter Gaza, it would have been the first cargo boat
    ever to do so. Gaza has rightly been described
    as the largest open air prison in the world, with Israel holding all the keys for its
    one and a half million people living under a policy of collective
    punishment.  Under siege for over three years now with a shortage of
    medicine and basic building materials, the twenty-two day bombardment by Israel in December 2009 and January 2010 left Gaza and its people in a
    place of suffering and isolation. The Flotilla’s purpose was to not only to
    bring humanitarian aid, books for children, toys, and writing materials, but also
    to help break the siege of Gaza
    which is slowly strangling its people.

    Israel
    violated international law and the incident is well documented by the UN and
    many independent human rights bodies. These violations of international
    law were committed under the guise of ‘national security’ and a policy of isolating
    Gaza to weaken
    Hamas.  It is a policy that is clearly not working.  As we have
    learned in Northern Ireland,
    violence never works. So why not try talking to Hamas just as the British
    Government had to talk to representatives of IRA and Loyalist paramilitaries in
    order to move toward peace.  

    The brutal and illegal attack of aid ships in international waters on May
    3lst and the subsequent boarding of the MV Rachel Corrie, also in international
    waters, is a symptom of the culture of impunity under which Israel
    operates. The Israeli government was quick to blame the activists on board the
    MV Mavi Marmara, claiming they attacked the Israeli Navy first and that they
    were members of terrorist groups. They also claimed that the HLL, the Turkish humanitarian
    group who organized the Mavi Marmara, had terrorist links.  The HLL is not
    a banned organization in Turkey
    and has no links to terrorist organizations.  It was disappointing to see
    how many international governments and media outlets immediately accepted Israel’s
    version of the story without further investigation.  While there have been
    calls for a ‘prompt, impartial, credible and transparent’ investigation into
    the events of May 3lst by the United Nations Security Council, the United
    States and others still seem to think that Israel can conduct such an investigation
    on its own.  In the words of my colleague, Nobel Laureate Jody Williams,
    this is like “the fox accounting for the number of chickens left in the
    henhouse”.  Such a response cannot stand, and nothing less than an independent
    investigation will be acceptable to the international community.

    The attack on the Freedom Flotilla is a tipping point.  It is time for
    the international community to finally stop allowing Israel to act with blatant
    disregard for human life, human rights, and international law.  The
    partial lifting of the siege shows what international pressure can achieve, but
    it is not enough. Only a full lifting of the siege can bring real freedom to
    the people of Gaza.
    It is time for Israel
    to choose peace.  It is time for world leaders and the international community
    to join together and call on Israel
    to lift the siege of Gaza completely, end the
    occupation of Palestine,
    and allow the Palestinian people their right to self-determination. We can all
    do something to help bring the day of reconciliation closer to reality. Supporting
    the BDS campaign, calling for an end to EU special trading status with Israel, and insisting that the USA end its economic and military assistance to Israel
    until it upholds its international commitments, are important initiatives in
    the steps toward peace. Palestine is a key to
    peace in the Middle East. If everyone refuses
    to be ‘silent’ in the face of Israel’s
    continued apartheid policies, we can move closer to ending all violence in the Middle East.

    Mairead Maguire (Nobel Peace Laureate)

    www.peacepeople.com

    19th June, 2010  

     

  • Understanding the Gaza Catastrophe

    For eighteen months the entire 1.5 million people of Gaza experienced a punishing blockade imposed by Israel, and a variety of traumatizing challenges to the normalcy of daily life. A flicker of hope emerged some six months ago when an Egyptian arranged truce produced an effective ceasefire that cut Israeli casualties to zero despite the cross-border periodic firing of homemade rockets that fell harmlessly on nearby Israeli territory, and undoubtedly caused anxiety in the border town of Sderot. During the ceasefire the Hamas leadership in Gaza repeatedly offered to extend the truce, even proposing a ten-year period and claimed a receptivity to a political solution based on acceptance of Israel’s 1967 borders. Israel ignored these diplomatic initiatives, and failed to carry out its side of the ceasefire agreement that involved some easing of the blockade that had been restricting the entry to Gaza of food, medicine, and fuel to a trickle.

    Israel also refused exit permits to students with foreign fellowship awards and to Gazan journalists and respected NGO representatives. At the same time, it made it increasingly difficult for journalists to enter, and I was myself expelled from Israel a couple of weeks ago when I tried to enter to carry out my UN job of monitoring respect for human rights in occupied Palestine, that is, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as Gaza. Clearly, prior to the current crisis, Israel used its authority to prevent credible observers from giving accurate and truthful accounts of the dire humanitarian situation that had been already documented as producing severe declines in the physical condition and mental health of the Gazan population, especially noting malnutrition among children and the absence of treatment facilities for those suffering from a variety of diseases. The Israeli attacks were directed against a society already in grave condition after a blockade maintained during the prior 18 months.

    As always in relation to the underlying conflict, some facts bearing on this latest crisis are murky and contested, although the American public in particular gets 99% of its information filtered through an exceedingly pro-Israeli media lens. Hamas is blamed for the breakdown of the truce by its supposed unwillingness to renew it, and by the alleged increased incidence of rocket attacks. But the reality is more clouded. There was no substantial rocket fire from Gaza during the ceasefire until Israel launched an attack last November 4th directed at what it claimed were Palestinian militants in Gaza, killing several Palestinians. It was at this point that rocket fire from Gaza intensified. Also, it was Hamas that on numerous public occasions called for extending the truce, with its calls never acknowledged, much less acted upon, by Israeli officialdom. Beyond this, attributing all the rockets to Hamas is not convincing either. A variety of independent militia groups operate in Gaza, some such as the Fatah-backed al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade are anti-Hamas, and may even be sending rockets to provoke or justify Israeli retaliation. It is well confirmed that when US-supported Fatah controlled Gaza’s governing structure it was unable to stop rocket attacks despite a concerted effort to do so.

    What this background suggests strongly is that Israel launched its devastating attacks, starting on December 27, not simply to stop the rockets or in retaliation, but also for a series of unacknowledged reasons. It was evident for several weeks prior to the Israeli attacks that the Israeli military and political leaders were preparing the public for large-scale military operations against the Hamas. The timing of the attacks seemed prompted by a series of considerations: most of all, the interest of political contenders, the Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, in demonstrating their toughness prior to national elections scheduled for February, but now possibly postponed until military operations cease. Such Israeli shows of force have been a feature of past Israeli election campaigns, and on this occasion especially, the current government was being successfully challenged by Israel’s notoriously militarist politician, Benjamin Netanyahu, for its supposed failures to uphold security. Reinforcing these electoral motivations was the little concealed pressure from the Israeli military commanders to seize the opportunity in Gaza to erase the memories of their failure to destroy Hezbollah in the devastating Lebanon War of 2006 that both tarnished Israel’s reputation as a military power and led to widespread international condemnation of Israel for the heavy bombardment of undefended Lebanese villages, disproportionate force, and extensive use of cluster bombs against heavily populated areas.

    Respected and conservative Israeli commentators go further. For instance, the prominent historian, Benny Morris writing in the New York Times a few days ago, relates the campaign in Gaza to a deeper set of forebodings in Israel that he compares to the dark mood of the public that preceded the 1967 War when Israelis felt deeply threatened by Arab mobilizations on their borders. Morris insists that despite Israeli prosperity of recent years, and relative security, several factors have led Israel to act boldly in Gaza: the perceived continuing refusal of the Arab world to accept the existence of Israel as an established reality; the inflammatory threats voiced by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad together with Iran’s supposed push to acquire nuclear weapons, the fading memory of the Holocaust combined with growing sympathy in the West with the Palestinian plight, and the radicalization of political movements on Israel’s borders in the form of Hezbollah and Hamas. In effect, Morris argues that Israel is trying via the crushing of Hamas in Gaza to send a wider message to the region that it will stop at nothing to uphold its claims of sovereignty and security.

    There are two conclusions that emerge: the people of Gaza are being severely victimized for reasons remote from the rockets and border security concerns, but seemingly to improve election prospects of current leaders now facing defeat, and to warn others in the region that Israel will use overwhelming force whenever its interests are at stake.

    That such a human catastrophe can happen with minimal outside interference also shows the weakness of international law and the United Nations, as well as the geopolitical priorities of the important players. The passive support of the United States government for whatever Israel does is again the critical factor, as it was in 2006 when it launched its aggressive war against Lebanon. What is less evident is that the main Arab neighbors, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, with their extreme hostility toward Hamas that is viewed as backed by Iran, their main regional rival, were also willing to stand aside while Gaza was being so brutally attacked, with some Arab diplomats even blaming the attacks on Palestinian disunity or on the refusal of Hamas to accept the leadership of Mamoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority.

    The people of Gaza are victims of geopolitics at its inhumane worst: producing what Israel itself calls a ‘total war’ against an essentially defenseless society that lacks any defensive military capability whatsoever and is completely vulnerable to Israeli attacks mounted by F-16 bombers and Apache helicopters. What this also means is that the flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, as set forth in the Geneva Conventions, is quietly set aside while the carnage continues and the bodies pile up. It additionally means that the UN is once more revealed to be impotent when its main members deprive it of the political will to protect a people subject to unlawful uses of force on a large scale. Finally, this means that the public can shriek and march all over the world, but that the killing will go on as if nothing is happening. The picture being painted day by day in Gaza is one that begs for renewed commitment to international law and the authority of the UN Charter, starting here in the United States, especially with a new leadership that promised its citizens change, including a less militarist approach to diplomatic leadership.

     

    Richard Falk is Chair of the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories.

  • No Exceptions

    Article originally published in Haaretz on 11/5/2007

     

    How can a country, which according to endless foreign reports has kept secret for years several atomic weapons, manage to rally the international community in a struggle against a neighboring country that insists on acquiring nuclear energy? What do Israeli politicians answer to those asking why Iran should not be allowed to acquire the same armaments that are already in the arsenals of neighboring countries, like Pakistan and India? The common response is that “Iran is the sole country whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declares openly that he intends to destroy the state of Israel.” This argument is a double-edged sword, par excellence, used by a country that sports a radiant nuclear glow (according to foreign press reports, of course), and who has a senior minister, one assigned to dealing with strategic threats, who has threatened to bomb the Aswan Dam.
    What will Israel’s policy – or for that matter, America’s – be, if in Iran’s upcoming elections, Ahmadinejad were to give way to a more moderate leader, who were to announce that Iran recognizes Israel’s right to exist within the 1967, borders? Will Iran become one of the “moderate” Muslim states, like, say, Pakistan, which is allowed to develop nuclear weapons? There was a day when our friend the Shah ruled Iran, and then came the Ayatollahs, with whom we were happy to trade arms, until the whole affair became muddled. Regimes come and go, but nuclear weapons are forever.
    According to foreign reports, Israel recently bombed a Syrian nuclear reactor that was under construction. It was reported that the United States approved the attack on the Syrian installation and went so far as to encourage Israel’s violation of Syrian sovereignty. Syria is part of the axis of evil, mostly because of its ties with Iran, its involvement in Lebanon and its intentional failure to prevent the entry of anti-American extremists into Iraq. But it is a well-known phenomenon, in the world in general and in the Middle East in particular, that an evil leader can become a popular friend overnight. What will the Israeli and American policies be toward the Syrian nuclear program if Assad were to announce his intentions to step away from Iran, not interfere in Lebanon and seal the border with Iraq?

    A visit to Jerusalem 30 years ago transformed Anwar Sadat from enemy No. 1 into a hero for peace. President Hosni Mubarak is considered an astute, peace-loving leader, and a friend of the west. He was even democratically elected. Sort of. But what would happen if one day, when the nuclear reactor is operational in the middle of Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood does to Mubarak’s heir what their Hamas brethren did to Mahmoud Abbas? Will we fly over to bomb the Egyptian nuclear reactor? And how does the free world need to deal with Pakistan, if its nuclear weapons fall under the control of Islamists? Is anyone proposing to preempt and invade Islamabad?
    Jordan’s King Abdullah said several months ago that most of the countries in the region, including his own, would begin developing nuclear energy. He was quick to stress that the Hashemite Kingdom would obviously place its nuclear installations under international supervision. He did not need to point out that this was “contrary to Israel.”
    The question is not therefore whether the Middle East is going nuclear, but when it will happen. The demand for a sanity certificate as a precondition for joining this club ensures that even the opponents of the Iranian regime will back Ahmadinejad against the entire world. Visitors who recently were in Tehran say that intellectuals, who did not hide their displeasure with their president, have expressed full support for his position on the nuclear question. They said that relinquishing the nuclear program would be interpreted as an admission that Iran belongs to the club of pariah nations and persisted in asking, “Why should it be forbidden to Iran when it is permitted to Pakistan and Israel?”
    The struggle against the Iranian and Syrian nuclear programs, and in the future perhaps the Egyptian and Jordanian programs, is meant to divert attention from the real problem in the Middle East – the war for hegemony over the region between the religious-extremist camp and the moderate-pragmatic one. The Annapolis summit is an excellent opportunity to update the formula for peace posed by the Arab League and conclude that when the conflict is resolved, the Middle East will be free of nuclear weapons. No exceptions!

     

    Akiva Eldar is the diplomatic affairs analyst for the Haaretz newspaper.

  • A New Chance for Peace?

    I am concerned that public discussion of my book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” has been diverted from the book’s basic proposals: that peace talks be resumed after six years of delay and that the tragic persecution of Palestinians be ended. Although most critics have not seriously disputed or even mentioned the facts and suggestions about these two issues, an apparently concerted campaign has been focused on the book’s title, combined with allegations that I am anti-Israel. This is not good for any of us who are committed to Israel’s status as a peaceful nation living in harmony with its neighbors.

    It is encouraging that President Bush has announced that peace in the Holy Land will be a high priority for his administration during the next two years. On her current trip to the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called for an early U.S.-Israeli-Palestinian meeting. She has recommended the 2002 offer of the 23 Arab nations as a foundation for peace: full recognition of Israel based on a return to its internationally recognized borders. This offer is compatible with official U.S. policy, previous agreements approved by Israeli governments in 1978 and 1993, and the “road map” for peace developed by the “quartet” (the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations).

    The clear fact is that Israel will never find peace until it is willing to withdraw from its neighboring occupied territories and permit the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights. With land swaps, this “green line” can be modified through negotiations to let a substantial number of Israeli settlers remain in their subsidized homes east of the internationally recognized border. The premise of exchanging Arab territory for peace has been acceptable for several decades to a majority of Israelis but not to a minority of the more conservative leaders, who are unfortunately supported by most of the vocal American Jewish community.

    These same premises, of course, will have to be accepted by any government that represents the Palestinians. A March 2006 poll by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah found 73 percent approval among citizens in the occupied territories, and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has expressed support for talks between President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and pledged to end Hamas’s rejectionist position if a negotiated agreement is approved by the Palestinian people.

    Abbas is wise in repeating to Secretary Rice that he rejects any “interim” boundaries for the Palestinian state. The step-by-step road-map formula promulgated almost three years ago for reaching a final agreement has proved to be a non-starter — and an excuse for not making any progress. I know from experience that it is often more difficult to negotiate an interim agreement, with all its future uncertainties, than to address the panoply of crucial issues that will have to be resolved to reach the goal of peace.

    Given these recent developments and with the Democratic Party poised to play a more important role in governing, this is a good time to clarify our party’s overall policy in the broader Middle East. Numerous options are available as Congress attempts to correlate its suggestions with White House policy, and there is little doubt that the basic proposals of the Iraq Study Group provide a good foundation on which Democrats might reach something of a consensus (recognizing that individual lawmakers could still make their own proposals on details). This party policy would provide a reasonable answer to the allegation that Democrats have no alternatives of their own to address the Iraq quagmire.

    A key factor in an Iraq policy would be strong demands on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government to cooperate in ending sectarian violence, prodded by a clear notice of plans for troop withdrawals. A commitment to regional cooperation, including opportunities for Iran and Syria to participate, would be beneficial in assuring doubtful Iraqis that America will no longer be the dominant outside power shaping their military, political and economic future.

    Although Israel’s prime minister has criticized these facets of the Iraq Study Group’s report, the most difficult recommendation for many Democrats could be the call for substantive peace talks on the Palestinian issue. The situation in the occupied territories will be a crucial factor, and it would be helpful for both the House and Senate to send a responsible delegation to the West Bank and Gaza to observe the situation personally, to meet with key leaders and to ascertain the prospects if peace talks can be launched.

    I am convinced that, with bipartisan support, this is a good opportunity for progress.

    Published by The Washington Post.

     

    Jimmy Carter was the 39th US President and is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. His most recent book is Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.

  • Apartheid in the Holy Land

    In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders.

    What is not so understandable, not justified, is what it did to another people to guarantee its existence. I’ve been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.

    On one of my visits to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?

    I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said:”Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews.”

    My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?

    Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won’t let ambulances reach the injured.

    The military action of recent days, I predict with certainty, will not provide the security and peace Israelis want; it will only intensify the hatred.

    Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or — I hope — to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders.

    We in South Africa had a relatively peaceful transition. If our madness could end as it did, it must be possible to do the same everywhere else in the world. If peace could come to South Africa, surely it can come to the Holy Land?

    My brother Naim Ateek has said what we used to say: “I am not pro- this people or that. I am pro-justice, pro- freedom. I am anti-injustice, anti-oppression.”

    But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticise it is to be immediately dubbed anti-semitic, as if the Palestinians were not semitic. I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group. And how did it come about that Israel was collaborating with the apartheid government on security measures?

    People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful — very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God’s world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.

    Injustice and oppression will never prevail. Those who are powerful have to remember the litmus test that God gives to the powerful: what is your treatment of the poor, the hungry, the voiceless? And on the basis of that, God passes judgment.

    We should put out a clarion call to the government of the people of Israel, to the Palestinian people and say: peace is possible, peace based on justice is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God’s dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers.

     

    Desmond Tutu is the former Archbishop of Cape Town and chairman of South Africa’s truth and reconciliation commission. This address was given at a conference on Ending the Occupation held in Boston, Massachusetts, earlier this month. A longer version appears in the current edition of Church Times.

  • Let Mordechai Vanunu Go

    On leaving Israel/Palestine today, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate, who has spent the last 10 days in Israel-Palestine campaigning for an end to the detention of Mordechai Vanunu, said:

    “I believe it is sad and shameful that the Israeli Government continues to detain Mordechai Vanunu for this the 20 year of his internal exile within Israel. He has no secrets. He is no threat to Israeli security. I therefore call upon the Israel Government to uphold Mordechai Vanunu’s human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of movement and let him go.

    I also support his call for a Nuclear Free Israel, Middle East and world and call upon the Israeli Government to open Dimona for inspection, and to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty.

    During my visit I have travelled to Jenin Refugee Camp, Hebron, and Bethlehem in the Israeli Occupied Territories. I have witnessed the daily suffering of the Palestinian people living under an increasing and worsening oppressive Israeli occupation.

    I believe there is a great desire for peace amongst all the people, but in order to move into serious dialogue and negotiations urgent steps, and the political will; particularly from the Israeli Government, need to be taken. I therefore make the following Appeal:

    1. I call upon the International Community, European Community, the United States of America, to intervene to end the 40 year occupation by Israel and to end the Palestinian suffering in Palestinian camps for 60 years. The International Community must not be intimidated and silenced by threats of being anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli, but must be bold in demanding Israel upholds it obligations under International Law.
    2. The way for peace must be for Israel to end the occupation and recognize and respect all the national and international human rights of the Palestinian people.
    3. I call upon the Palestinian people to use the methods of Jesus Christ, Badshan Khan, Gandhi, Martin Luther King of nonviolent resistance to the occupation and apartheid system, which continues to cause so much suffering to their people. And for the International Community to support such a nonviolent resistance by the Palestinian people.
    4. I call upon the Israeli Government to uphold International Court of Justice and dismantle the Apartheid wall, and the Apartheid system of injustice. To recognize the democratically elected Government of the Palestinian people and enter into serious dialogue with their new ‘partner for peace’.
    5. I call upon Israeli Government, European Union, United State, to restore Foreign Aid as the withdrawing of this, is in effect. a collective punishment of the Palestinian people, many of whom already live under great poverty and hardship, due to the continuing illegal occupation and colonization of the Palestinian Territories.
    6. I call upon all Israeli and Palestinian people to continue to hope and believe and act for peace, and to do everything in their power to begin to build trust and friendship amongst each other. Nuclear Weapons, militarism, and emergency laws will not build trust, but overcome the fear of each other, and continuing the great work already being done by both Israeli and Palestinian peace activists, and many others, will bring peace. The Israeli Government can help this process by making it possible for people to actually meet each other, and build a grassroots peace movement together.

    I have great hopes for both Israeli-Palestinian and leave strengthened and upheld by the love and affection I have received from my many Israeli and Palestinian Friends.

    Shalom/Salam,
    Mrs Mairead Corrigan Maguire Nobel Peace Laureate

    Peace People 224 Lisburn Road, Belfast. BT9 Northern Ireland – UK. www.peacepeople.com Tel: (44) (0)2890 663465 Fax: (44) (0)2890 381987 Email Info@peacepeople.com

    Mairead Corrigan Maguire received the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize and the 1991 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Distinguished Peace Leadership Award. She recently participated in the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2006 International Law Symposium, “At the Nuclear Precipice: Nuclear Weapons and the Abandonment of International Law.”

  • Support for Wall Mocks International Law

    What is most remarkable about the International Court of Justice decision on Israel’s ”security barrier” in the West Bank is the strength of the consensus behind it. By a vote of 14-1, the 15 distinguished jurists who make up the highest judicial body on the planet found that the barrier is illegal under international law and that Israel must dismantle it, as well as compensate Palestinians for damage to their property resulting from the barrier’s construction.

    The International Court of Justice has very rarely reached this degree of unanimity in big cases. The July 9 decision was even supported by the generally conservative British judge Rosalyn Higgins, whose intellectual force is widely admired in the United States.

    One might expect the government of Ariel Sharon to wave off this notable consensus as an ”immoral and dangerous opinion.” But one might expect the United States — even as it backed its ally Israel — at least to take account of the court’s reasoning in its criticisms. Instead, both the Bush administration and leading Democrats, including Senators John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, mindlessly rejected the decision.

    Even the American justice in The Hague, Thomas Buergenthal, was careful in his lone dissent. He argued that the court did not fully explore Israel’s contention that the wall-and-fence complex is necessary for its security before arriving at its sweeping legal conclusions. But Judge Buergenthal also indicated that Israel was bound to adhere to international humanitarian law, that the Palestinians were entitled to exercise their right of self-determination and, insofar as the wall was built to protect Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, that he had “serious doubt that the wall would. . .satisfy the proportionality requirement to qualify as legitimate self-defense.”

    The nuance in Buergenthal’s narrow dissent contrasts sharply with, for instance, Kerry’s categorical statement that Israel’s barrier “is not a matter for the ICJ.”

    To the contrary, Israel’s construction of the wall in the West Bank has flagrantly violated clear standards in international law. The clarity of the violations accounts for the willingness of the U.N. General Assembly to request an advisory opinion on the wall from the court, a right it has never previously exercised in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The clarity also helps to explain Israel’s refusal to participate in the ICJ proceedings — not even to present its claim that the barrier under construction has already reduced the incidence of suicide bombing by as much as 90 percent.

    Significantly, the court confirms that Israel is entitled to build a wall to defend itself from threats emanating from the Palestinian territories if it builds the barrier on its own territory. The justices based their objection to the wall on its location within occupied Palestinian territories, as well as the consequent suffering visited upon affected Palestinians.

    If Israel had erected the wall on its side of the boundary of Israel prior to the 1967 war, then it would not have encroached on Palestinian legal rights. The court’s logic assumes the unconditional applicability of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, to Israel’s administration of the West Bank and Gaza (a principle affirmed by Judge Buergenthal). That body of law obliges Israel to respect the property rights of Palestinians without qualification, and to avoid altering the character of the territory, including by population transfer.

    The decision creates a clear mandate. The ICJ decision, by a vote of 13-2, imposes upon all states an obligation not to recognize ”the illegal situation” created by the construction of the wall. This is supplemented by a 14-1 vote urging the General Assembly and Security Council to “consider what further action is required to bring an end to the illegal situation.”

    Such a plain-spoken ruling from the characteristically cautious International Court of Justice will test the respect accorded international law, including U.S. willingness to support international law despite a ruling against its ally. The invasion of Iraq and the continuing scandals have already tarnished the reputation of the United States as a law-abiding member of the international community. When U.S. officials dismiss the nearly unanimous ICJ decision without even bothering to engage its arguments, America’s reputation suffers further. In fact, elsewhere in the world, U.S. repudiation of this decision can only entrench existing views of America as an international outlaw.

    Richard Falk is a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University, and is chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Israelis and Palestinians: Two Traumatized Peoples

    I have long loved Israel. When I was there in the sixties, I found that little country a rare and refreshing spiritual, political, and social experiment. It had taken, I felt, the best from a variety of governing systems and had blended them in a remarkable way. I had hoped each of my sons and daughters would spend time on a Kibbutz.

    When I returned in the 80’s, I found a very different ambience. Israel was heavily armed, frightened, defensive, and persecuting the Palestinians. What had happened to this promising nation and its people to become so bellicose?

    A whole new chapter of my life opened. I wondered why people tortured other people, and thought that if I could know that answer, there might be new possibilities for peacemaking and reconciliation. And, as a Quaker Pacifist, I believed that I should have no enemy and should care for the wounded on all sides of any battle.

    That year I worked on both sides of the Green Line – moving back and forth, interviewing peace people, both Israelis and Palestinians. The suffering of the Palestinians under Israeli rule was horrifying. It seemed madness; I wondered whether the behavior of the Israeli government and the military had anything to do with the suffering from the Holocaust. I began reading everything I could find on the Holocaust syndrome. In the ensuing years, I learned about post-traumatic-stress disorder (PTSD) – a tragic condition which frequently affects soldiers when they emerge from battle – and often years later.

    I learned that in World War I people called the behavior of men returning from wars “Battle Fatigue” and the behavior was similar to one suffering from a catastrophic event “outside the range of normal human experience.” Symptoms can include depression, isolation, withdrawal, rage, inability to feel – numbing, alienation, intrusive thoughts, horrifying flash-backs, a form of hyper-vigilance akin to paranoia, and more. We began calling it PTSD.

    I looked at the histories of these two adversaries, the Israelis and the Palestinians. I saw them as two traumatized people who have both suffered from and committed acts of terrorism and violence against one another. Today the Israeli government is in a position of power and is oppressor to the Palestinians. There is, of course, retaliation. While there is a strong, and active peace movement against the Israeli government’s policies—at least 50% of Israeli citizens are said to disagree with their government—the people have not been able to change its policy to one of just and peaceful coexistence.

    Today it’s easy to see the Palestinian suffering and the injustices they experience. It is not so easy to see the suffering of Israelis, and to consider them brutal, relentless, and unapproachable.

    I see this differently. I have come to believe that violence springs from our unhealed wounds, and our attitude toward violent people requires a compassionate approach, while we stand steadfast against cruel actions. I believe we must listen compassionately to both sides of all conflicts, and explore the history and fears of both. This is called “Compassionate Listening” and is being practiced in the Middle East, Alaska, the US, and Canada with interesting results.

    I studied every thing I could find on the Holocaust Syndrome, and returned to the area many times to learn more about both suffering peoples. I felt it might be the unseen and unhealed wound of both parties to this tragic conflict.

    There is a new consciousness of the long-term effects of the concentration camp on their survivors. There is a new awareness that no healing processes were available at the time people were released from concentration camps, and a disturbing lack of care since then. Some people are beginning to refer to the violent actions of their government and the refusal to grant Palestinians a home of their own, as PTSD on both sides. The survivors in Israel experience a deep fear that it will happen again. Many Israelis appear to be affected by a “siege mentality,” and they believe they live in a dangerous “war zone.”

    Rabbi Jeremy Milgrom was born in the US and is now an Israeli citizen. When I was there in the ‘90s he was head of Israel’s Clergy for Peace. This tall, young man, intense, and compassionate said: “The holocaust left many Jews so scarred that they believe powerlessness is a sin. They feel the whole world is hostile to us – this is sick behavior. Our politics are the opposite of forgiveness – mainly rebellion against mistreatment suffered in the Holocaust, and violent treatment from Palestinians who demand their freedom.”

    Rabbi Milgrom is second generation from the Holocaust and finds his government irrational because the Jewish State has been implemented at the expense of the Palestinians who formerly lived on the land, and because Spiritual Zionism has changed into Statehood after the Nazi persecution. There was a war with the Palestinians which Israelis won and Rabbi Milgrom maintains the “Israeli agenda is corrupt because we’re not permitting Palestinians to re-unify. We Jews feel guilt toward the Palestinians, and we’re unwilling to have a dialogue with them because it will be so unpleasant.”

    Rabbi Milgrom was also struggling with the issue of forgiving Germans, for he said, “as long as we withhold forgiveness of the Germans, we’re corrupted. It’s very hard to trust after the Holocaust, (but) if we can have this redemptive dialogue with the Germans, then we can break down the resistance to having it with the Palestinians. Forgiveness is a release from the past. You don’t have to forget.”

    Another Rabbi, Rabbi Jonasson Gershom, in his article Breaking the Cycle of Abuse, wrote: “On a conscious level, the Israelis are not purposely punishing the Palestinians for the Holocaust. The very suggestion is horrifying to most Jews – didn’t we collectively vow ‘never again?’ But it is also true that people who have been abused will, when they come to power, abuse others because they do not have healthy models for exercising power. Abuse is passed down from generation to generation…unless there is some kind of therapy to teach new ways of coping with frustration and anger.”

    Rabbi Gershom also addresses the question of abuse in its’ application to nations. It is relatively easy to overthrow a government, but far more difficult to oust the internalized oppression which causes us to demonize others. The abuse cycle is not logical. It is a set of totally irrational behaviors based on pain, fear, shame, guilt, and anger… rather than forgive and forget, we need to forgive and move forward… Nonviolence does not mean passive resistance; it means holding to the truth, using truth, faith, and love as our ‘weapons’ for waging peace.

    I agree with Rabbi Gershom. There is a Buddhist tale of the snake who learned to practice nonviolence. Like the snake, I reserve the right to “hiss” and warn others of danger.

    Last night I met with editor-in-chief of New Outlook magazine, Chaim Shur. He was a lovely, generous, gentle man who told me “the Holocaust is the worst trauma in Jewish history. The whole world was killing us. No one did anything to prevent it. The Holocaust Syndrome invades a large part of our lives. Five hundred thousand people in Israel are Holocaust survivors – and now there is a second generation…”

    When I asked him if he thought survivors suffer from PTSD, he answered, “PTSD is not a scientific diagnosis. I have a daughter-in-law whose parents are Holocaust survivors. I don’t accept it.”

    After this journey, I returned to the Middle East to listen to Palestinians. By this time I had learned new things: that people become “terrorists” when they feel their grievances are not heard, their concerns not addressed. I believe that our work as peacemakers is not to take sides, but to seek truth, and, there will never be peace unless both sides are listened to. We must care about those who hurt others, and listen with respect to those who disagree or oppose us. I believe that through such listening we can open new avenues for communication where people are in conflict. We hope that one day they will be able to listen to each other.

    Now to Palestine, or the occupied territories: How can I make Gaza real to you? Gaza, a Muslim strip of land on the Israeli-Egyptian border – the most densely populated area in the world. Perhaps by telling you how people looked, what they said, and what I saw and heard.

    In the outskirts of Gaza, fruit trees blossom, wild grasses cover the fields – and people suffer.

    The main street had chuckholes full of dirty water, broken buildings, blind stores, their locked doors covered with anti-occupation graffiti. A woman walked down the broken sidewalk, a baby on her hip, talking and gesticulating excitedly. A barefoot old man carried a knotted staff; he limped.

    Gaza in 1996. Desolate, harsh, dark corners, prostheses, crutches, braces, scabies. 15,000 demolished homes, miscarriages from gas attacks, rubber fragmentation bullets, plastic bullets over an explosive metal core. Prison sentences of 150 years, 700,000 people in 360 square kilometers, 45% of their land confiscated by 2,500 Israeli Settlers, Xeroxed pictures of sons of Gaza who were martyrs, on lamp posts. Young men and children shot for throwing stones.

    Refugee camps, rag walls on houses, sewage flowing in the central gutter down narrow streets. “There’s not even enough room to carry our dead through these streets!” Malnutrition, worms, parasites infesting the people.

    And still, there is life in Gaza.

    We drove into a parking lot across a shallow lake of dirty water left by the rains. The buildings are faded blue and white. A sign reads American Friends Service Committee: Early Childhood Education Center. We are taken to a pale green room with a desk and chairs. We wait for Mary Khass, a Palestinian Quaker and pacifist who is the director of this little Center. She has suffered the fate of most Palestinians: a son was killed, her family disrupted, desolation and despair. Yet Mary is said to have a sturdy faith in life; and she lives in this childcare center.

    Mary Khass enters. She is full-figured, Western dressed. Her face is carved into lines of pain and compassion. She stands before us telling her story. I trust Mary Khass.

    “My deepest concern is the children. We and the Israelis are raising a generation of haters. It is important for the Palestinians and Israelis to come to an understanding before the Palestinians lose all the land. There is no survival without sharing. We and the Israelis will have to live here – the sooner, the better.

    “What can you do to help us? Work hard for the two states. Respect and support Israeli progressive groups, but remember, they haven’t done enough unless they refuse military service in the occupied territories. If they are against the occupation, they must not serve.

    And then, her cry of anguish: “How can they sleep? There is a hospital next to this place. I have seen Israeli soldiers raid the hospital. They shot and beat patients, nurses, doctors. I saw an Israeli soldier crying and beating his head against the wall. A Palestinian mother comforted this soldier. ‘Malesh. It’s all right, my son.’ That young man could have said ‘no.’ Why didn’t he say no? Can Israelis not see it’s more courageous to work for peace than war?

    “We have unwanted refugees all over the world. We didn’t cause the Holocaust. We advocate a peaceful and just solution for both. But my people have learned that depending on justice and the politicians is fruitless. We must pay the price and bring about change ourselves. Our children are suffering emotional horror, hypocrisy, violence, and fear. The little ones learn how to solve problems with violence. They are out-of-control. They are controlling us. The hand that throws the stone needs understanding and love. Educators need education to deal with opening the minds of these little ones.

    “Recently a bullet was shot in a camp. Nobody was hurt. All the camp was placed under curfew for twelve days. One hundred and eighty young men were arrested. All the citrus groves were demolished. Three houses were destroyed. Many men between the ages of sixteen to sixty were beaten.

    “The Israelis must learn to live with guilt. To do this, they must stay in camps with us. As long as they don’t stay in our camps, they haven’t crossed the line emotionally. As long as they don’t discourage their military from serving in the territories, they wipe my tears with one hand, and slap me with the other.”

    That night we heard shooting in the streets; fires blazed in the sky. The next day, fighting continued with rock throwing and sporadic shots. Soldiers and rock-throwers faced-off on a street in which we were riding; our driver turned hastily and left. We later learned a nine year old boy was killed.

    We were taken from refugee camp to refugee camp – more stories.

    “I was in prison; so was my husband – he for 440 years. I was pregnant, near term. The guards insisted the baby should be born – now – dead. They said I have five living children; this one must die. They drove me for two hours over rough roads. I was forced to lie on my stomach. The baby did not come. They took me to a room in the prison and manacled me to the bed. They threatened and probed and pushed. Still the baby did not come. They called my baby a terrorist. At last, my baby came. He lived! I called him Yasser. God wanted Yasser to live.

    More voices from the camps: “I have two martyrs in my family; two of my sons were shot. See their pictures on the wall…My son was seventeen when he was killed by open fire on demonstrators…Mine was shot in the head…My son is in Anssar III, the prison of suffering…My youngest son is serving his ninth prison sentence…”

    “Do not feel sorry for us. We are parents of Martyrs. We are proud. For thirty-eight years we were silent and compliant. Then we began the Intifada – our uprising. We do not use weapons. We use our skills. We now have hope and a purpose. We will not stop until we get our independent State and our own identity.”

    I feel there are always new possibilities if we look for them. The therapist, Alice Miller, is confident that we can find ways to free ourselves of hatred and rage by doing the painful and rewarding work of feeling and experience it “in its original context.” She is confident that we can save life on our planet by “questioning present dangerous and ubiquitous blindness (denial) – above all, as it exists in ourselves.”

    I agree with Alice Miller, and I feel, if we can see the sorrow and suffering of those who commit heinous violence, some new dimensions will open for our lives and for peacemaking. I see peacemaking as a healing process, and know that if we include this dimension in our efforts, our efforts will have new power and persuasion.