Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 2001, page 89

Waging Peace

Israel’s Human Rights Violations and Future Visions

The twin topics of Israeli actions in Palestine and what future might be possible for both peoples were the subjects of an April symposium at the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine (CPAP) in Washington, DC. Speakers included Linda Malone, law professor at William and Mary’s Marshall-Wythe School of Law, and Richard Falk, international law professor at Princeton University, both of whom spoke on the issue of human rights. Falk also served as one of three members of a February United Nations commission of inquiry into the present crisis. On the issue of future prospects, author Israel Shamir spoke and American University sociology professor and CPAP board member Samih Farsoun read a paper by the absent Naseer Aruri, political science professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth.

Malone discussed Sharon’s status as a war criminal from a legal perspective. Citing the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as decisions made at Nuremberg, the Treaty of Rome, and findings in regard to Agosto Pinochet and Rwanda, Malone stated that there are no statutes of limitations on war criminals, and that no government could agree to immunize a war criminal. Moreover, under international law all states are legally obligated to initiate prosecution against Sharon for his role in the Sabra and Shatila massacres, based on the findings of Israel’s Kahan commission. Additionally, the guiding principles of international law require that Sharon be removed from public office. Israel’s violations of international law extend to the election of Sharon and the decision not to prosecute him, she concluded, as well as to the better known violations of illegal occupation, prevention of refugee return, and collective punishment.

Professor Falk discussed his participation in the U.N. Human Rights Commission’s visit to Israel and occupied Palestine. The Israeli government did not cooperate with the commission, he stated, and all three members were in accordance on primary, secondary, and tertiary issues. Moreover, Falk declared that one’s mind need only be 20 percent open to conclude that Palestinians were the victims of egregious human rights violations by Israel. The situation was “almost inescapably worse than my moral imagination is capable of,” he said.

Falk emphasized the gap in power between Israel and Palestine as an exacerbating factor in Israel’s use of “great brutality and undue violence” to repress the uprising. Israel’s greater power is based on its prosperity, its sovereignty, its U.S. alliance, and its control of information.

This information hegemony predicates an Israeli (and American) baseline of the present which negates all illegalities imposed since 1967, as well as excluding issues such as the right of return dating from 1948. Because of this, Falk said, the Israeli center and moderate left accept the view that Israel made and the Palestinian Authority rejected a generous offer at Camp David, thus conveniently blaming the Palestinians for the failure of the peace accords. Falk found that Israeli control was so immense that its policy of assassinating Palestinians who work closely with Israeli non-governmental organizations—when arrest was an option—sent a message to the Palestinian public that “No matter who you are, Israel has the power to kill you.”

Falk summarized the commission’s findings as: first, the excessive and disproportionate use of force; second, that extra-judicial assassinations are grave breaches of the Geneva convention; third, that “settlements” are intimately connected to violence and themselves illegal per se; fourth, that collective punishment violates social and human rights and international law; and finally, that the treatment of especially vulnerable Palestinian refugees is an intensified violation of human rights and international law. He recommended that the signatories to the Geneva convention reconvene to implement its accords, that immediate steps be taken by the international community to secure protection for refugees, that an understanding be reached with Israel that settlements are illegal and must cease, and that assassinations must stop, as must the destruction of property. Finally, Falk declared that international law must be respected and human rights observed, and that Palestinians were entitled to that today.

After a break, the symposium turned to a discussion of what may lie ahead for Palestine and Israel. Professor Aruri contended that nobody had ever addressed what successes may have arisen out of the failed Oslo peace accords. According to Aruri, one major implication of Oslo was that integration, not segregation, was a solution unlooked for by participants. Aruri argued that this one-state idea was inescapable due to the interdependence of Palestine and Israel both economically and ecologically. However, Aruri said, had the Oslo agreement been implemented as it was, it would have resulted in an extremely lopsided arrangement, leaving a fragmented and dependent Palestine as the big loser.

Though Aruri said that a call for one secular democratic state had been dismissed after 1967, he claimed that it now was being discussed again, albeit by intellectuals and activists. Before such a state could work, however, legal, social and economic disabilities must be removed from all sectors of Palestinian society. Though it would collide with the plans of the major players in Tel Aviv, Washington, DC, and Ramallah, Aruri concluded that the goal of the struggle must be toward equal protection of the law for all people in one new state.

The last participant was Israel Shamir. A Russian Jew who immigrated to Israel, Shamir spoke about how his impressions changed as he grew to know the people and the country. He averred that in fact there was already only one state, that Palestine—replete with all its claimants—had been united since the 8th century BCE. Furthermore, he stated, the only time Palestine had been divided was from 1948 to 1967. What is needed, in Shamir’s opinion, is to democratize the state already in existence. Shamir mentioned that he had been asked in his numerous talks on the subject what the name of this state should be. His answer was Palestine “I”, a name it was sometimes given in the British Mandate period.

Shamir argued that Arab citizens of Israel are mistaken in not using their votes to effect change. However, he believes that the U.S. also plays a crucial role, particularly the people of New York City and Washington, DC, and those who control the media. Nonetheless, Shamir sees hope for a change in U.S. policy with regard to Israel which will occur when the “sleeping giant” of the American public is awakened and their fear of speaking their minds is quieted. Shamir contended that he saw no reason for Jews to practice supremacist attitudes, and that a democratic state predicated on equality with a one-person, one-vote structure would be a huge step toward peace.

—Sara Powell

Palestinians Protest 53 Years of Dispossession

Several hundred Palestinians and their supporters, including a large contingent of Jews against the Israeli occupation of Palestine, assembled for a march down Connecticut Avenue to the White House on May 15, the 53rd anniversary of the Nakba—the catastrophe—when Israel began its program of ethnic cleansing.

A coalition of groups sponsored the demonstration, including the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Al-Awda-DC, DC Coalition to Stop the War Against Iraq, El-Bireh Society, International Socialist Organization, Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel, Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Network of Arab Alumni and Professionals. American Muslims for Jerusalem executive director Khalid Turaani addressed demonstrators, updating them on Israel’s efforts to obtain extra U.S. military aid to help them quell the Palestinian uprising.

Along the march route, most onlookers who reacted to the demonstration did so with signals of solidarity: honking horns, thumbs-up gestures, and shouts of support. The numbers of those participating swelled. Upon reaching the White House there were close to a thousand people in attendance. The demonstration also attracted a sizeable number of tourists—many of whom accepted literature concerning the Nakba. As usual, protesters shouted slogans such as “No justice, no peace,” and “No return, no peace.” In remembrance of the catastrophe, however, demonstrators quieted their cries for justice to observe a few minutes of silence.

Another touching aspect of this demonstration came in the form of a young American woman who admitted it was her first protest ever. She nervously queried whether there would be a lot of Jewish counter-demonstrators. When told there might be, but that there were many Jews protesting Israel’s actions with the Palestinians, she admitted that she came from a Jewish background herself, but just could not condone Israeli policy. This courageous young woman stayed for the entire march, even when confronted by a particularly nasty heckler. It seems that as Palestinian protests and Israeli crimes both grow, more and more people are beginning to see the light and back the Palestinians in their fight for freedom.

—Sara Powell

Forging a Jewish Unity for a Just Peace

Over the weekend of May 4 to 6, more than 175 Jewish peace activists from over 50 organizations—and from locations in Israel, the United States, Canada, Brazil and the West Bank—came to Chicago to attend the Jewish Unity for a Just Peace (Junity) international conference. The conference, organized in less than two months’ time, brought together the many, but heretofore scattered, Jews who oppose the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and who were intent on meeting each other, networking and combining their resources. The conference culminated in the formation of a new international network of committed Jewish peace activists who will work vigorously to oppose the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and the continuing expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

While Israel has tightened its siege on Palestinian communities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and increased its use of collective punishment to accomplish its objectives, the American and international mainstream media present a very distorted perspective of the reality on the ground of Israel’s occupation, as well as the political forces surrounding it.

Because mainstream American Jewish organizations promote an uncritical support of Israel that is both dangerous and disingenuous, there is a glaring and growing need to make it clear that there are a great many Jews who want to put an end to the routine abuse of Palestinian human rights and to Israel’s expansionist and illegal settlement policy. Some of the participants at the conference were focused on increasing that Jewish voice, while others were more concerned with working outside the Jewish community. All saw the need, however, for Jews to combat the image projected by the major Jewish organizations that portrays Jews as speaking with one monolithic voice, in unconditional support of Israeli actions.

Conference events included panels with various peace and justice activists. Jeff Halper, coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, and Rela Mazali of New Profile (an Israeli feminist organization devoted to combating the strong military influence in Israeli society) gave attendees some ideas as to how American Jews might best help activists in Israel who are working hard to change Israeli policies.

Halper compared the “generous offer” that Yasser Arafat spurned last summer to a prison. “In a prison, 95 percent of the space is for the prisoners—they have cells, exercise yards, work areas, and dining areas. It only takes the other 5 percent to contain and control them.”

Mazali urged attendees to find ways to make the American people aware of the growing number of young Israelis refusing military service. She pointed out that many young Israelis are finding ways to get out of military service or end their terms early, and are increasingly being jailed for refusing military service altogether. She also pointed out that fully 70 percent of reservists are simply failing to report for duty when called. In a society that is as militaristic as Israel’s, she said, this is almost beyond imagination.

Veteran Jewish-American activists Cherie Brown, Melanie Kaye/Kantrowitz, and Irena Klepfisz analyzed the history of Jewish peace activism in the United States, reviewing what has been successful and what has not. At the Junity Allies Dinner, shared with members of the Arab-American community and Christian Middle East peace activists, Palestinian media critic and activist Ali Abunimah and former Israeli Knesset member Marcia Freedman shared their experiences and views with attendees. The dinner gave the many activists an opportunity to share their experiences with each other, but also to build connections with and better understand the needs of groups outside the Jewish community.

Many efforts were made to “cast a wide net” for this conference. The goal was a diverse group of Jews who could agree to one overriding point: that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem must end, and that ending must come in a manner that is just for all concerned, not only for Israel. Efforts were made, for example, to involve religious and traditional Jews, who are often overlooked in activist gatherings. Shabbat was celebrated and an understanding of how Jewish religious and secular traditions may inform peace and justice activism was explored. Rabbi David Seidenberg spoke about how Jewish figures such as prophets, as well as Jewish traditions, can serve to inspire that peace and justice work.

The conference succeeded in bringing together disaffected Jews, who have long felt that their voices as Jews could not be heard, with peace activists who have long worked within the Jewish community. Anti-Zionist Jews sat and strategized with Jews to whom the continued existence of a Jewish state was important, and both found that they could come together around the idea that the occupation must end before any real progress toward peace can be realized.

It wasn’t always easy. Disputes over the Palestinian right of return or between those who advocated a two-state solution and those who envisioned a single, secular-democratic state were very visible, and often vexing. Yet the very appearance of such a debate is a mark of great progress in the Jewish-American peace camp, where such diversity of opinion reflects the vitality of new organizing efforts.

Despite these disputes, there was a strong feeling of unity at the conference. Reactions to it generally have been positive, and reflected a feeling that this was only the beginning. Many attendees emphasized that among the most important outcomes from Junity were the connections they established with other local activists. While a new formal national organization did not emerge, as some had hoped, a strong network of activists was forged, specific actions were decided upon, and the foundation was laid for a new, more powerful Jewish peace movement.

The commitment to work to end the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem was strengthened, simply through Jewish activists from various states or countries, but who were working on similar projects, having had the opportunity to meet each other. Committees were formed around a myriad of different activities and campaigns. The emergent network has taken a leading role in coordinating and increasing American participation in the Women in Black vigils, over 100 of which took place around the world on June 8, the 34th anniversary of the Israeli seizure of East Jerusalem. There was also planning around witnessing trips to Palestine; crucial educational programs within the Jewish community, especially with Jewish youth; demonstrations during the Days of Awe, renouncing the specifically Jewish right of return to Israel; coordinated actions around specific upcoming landmark dates; media monitoring; and lobbying. Connections were made, faces were matched to e-mail addresses, meals were shared and conversations went on late into the night.

Most importantly, the first steps toward facilitating more effective international coordination of Middle East peace and justice activities by Jewish groups were taken. The Junity website, <www.junity.org>, will serve as an effective clearinghouse and organizing portal. More than a dozen action campaign groups with diverse focus and inter-regional representation were created. These working groups will form the foundation of the growing Jewish Unity for a Just Peace, or Junity, network. This network has the potential to offer a voice to the many Jews who oppose Israeli occupation policies and actions, and who support the human rights of the Palestinian people. Junity will be a vehicle to mobilize their convictions into a powerful political force. For more information contact Steven Feuerstein at (773) 454-8397 or Mitchell Plitnick at (510) 526-7913, e-mail <info@junity.
org> or visit the organization’s Web site: <www.junity.org>.

—Steven Feuerstein & Mitchell Plitnick

Rabbi Ascherman Presents A Rabbinic View on Human Rights

On May 21, the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine hosted a talk by Rabbi Avi Ascherman, the executive director of Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR), an organization advocating protection of human rights for Palestinians, Israelis and foreign workers. On a U.S.-Canadian tour, Rabbi Ascherman publicized his organization’s various activities, the most recent of which is the “Olive Tree for Peace Campaign” attempting to raise funds to help replace 23,000 olive plants uprooted by the Israeli army.

Rabbi Ascherman explained that being one of a handful of Jewish organizations spending time in the West Bank since the start of the second intifada, RHR has been able to assess the effects of the intifada on both communities. Ironically, Rabbis for Human Rights was created in 1988 as a result of Israeli abuses against Palestinians during the first intifada. Prompted by a need to emphasize the connection between Judaism and social justice, RHR was created by reform, orthodox, conservative, and reconstructionist rabbis. Its members sought to highlight the authentic Jewish tradition of human rights, a tradition that condemns the humiliation or mistreatment of any human being.

Rabbi Ascherman emphasized that since the start of the Oslo peace process, the Israeli government has sought to create facts on the ground, which included evicting local communities such as the Jahalin bedouin from their indigenous lands with no proper compensation. Demolition of Palestinian homes, Rabbi Ascherman stated, is yet another means of ascertaining that Area C, still under negotiation, is free of Palestinian control. Rabbi Ascherman said that there remain 2,000 standing demolition orders against Palestinian homes.

With respect to the current intifada, Rabbi Ascherman explained that a great number of progressive Israelis who were involved in the peace process feel betrayed by violence stemming from the Palestinian areas. Other Israelis assign equal share of responsibility for the violence to both the Palestinian and Israeli sides. Palestinians, he explained, believe that the Oslo peace process has always been a trap for them and merely pays lip service to the creation of a Palestinian state that never materialized, while guaranteeing an end to the Palestinian struggle for independence.

Rabbi Ascherman also indicated that Israelis were shocked by the shooting deaths of 13 Israeli Arabs by the Israeli military within the Green Line. One cannot understand the causes of Palestinian resistance, said Rabbi Ascherman, without connecting it to existing discrimination by the Israeli government against Palestinians.

With respect to clashes in the West Bank, Rabbi Ascherman concurred with the May 2001 report of B’Tselem (the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories). Although “bullets were flying from both sides,” Rabbi Ascherman reiterated that there is no doubt that the Israeli army fired first and continued doing so for the first day and a half of clashes. He expressed concern over the high level of fatalities the army inflicts on Palestinian protesters, many of whom are unarmed. The report also revealed that, in violation of their own regulations, Israeli soldiers were shooting to kill, not to disperse. Furthermore, he reiterated that the report dispersed the myth that Palestinian parents were sending their children to be killed as a way to garner world support.

Rabbi Ascherman also stated that the Israeli military was unable to present any evidence that ambulances, targeted often by Israeli soldiers, had ever been used to transfer arms. He also said that failure to reach a final agreement at Camp David between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat did not cause the violence. Rather, the failure of Oslo was reflected in ongoing Israeli land expropriations, tree uprooting, and road building.

RHR provides humanitarian assistance and engages in acts of civil disobedience through removing roadblocks and rebuilding demolished Palestinian homes. Many Palestinians, he stated, remain under complete Israeli siege. Their access to work, health care, and education all are hampered by the cycle of violence. Palestinian villagers are under constant threats from armed settlers and soldiers. A week prior to his visit, Israeli soldiers shot Rabbi Ascherman’s Palestinian friend Issa Sawaf, from the village of Ahhras, while he was attempting to gather and bring home his children. Sawaf’s injury will prevent him from ever walking again.

The rabbi stated that some of RHR’s work has been hampered by the unbalanced reporting of the Israeli media, which has further fueled extreme Israeli attitudes against Palestinians. In addition, Palestinians are fearful and suspicious of any joint work with Israeli Jews. Rabbi Ascherman said the most difficult job remains trying to win Israeli hearts and minds to the legitimate cause of RHR.

—Asma Yousef

Faisal Husseini Discusses Prospects of Renewed Talks

Palestinian Minister for Jerusalem Affairs Faisal Husseini gave what was to be one of his last briefings to reporters at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on May 3, sponsored by the American Committee on Jerusalem. Husseini, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, who died of a heart attack in Kuwait on May 31, at the age of 60 (see page 17), told the room packed with journalists, activists and diplomats that people in the U.S. did not see the real picture in Palestine.

In the last seven months in the occupied territories, Husseini said, Israel has carried on a real war against Palestinian civilians, starting with Ariel Sharon’s provocative visit to the Haram al-Sharif. “I myself tried hard to stop it,” Husseini said. “It was like opening Pandora’s box with all kinds of evils coming out of it.”

The next day Israeli police attacked peaceful demonstrators with brute force. Seven Palestinians were killed without one bullet having been fired from the Palestinian side. The Israel Defense Force used live ammunition, and would not allow the Palestinian leadership to come in and calm the crowd. All the talk about Palestinians training and preparing for this intifada is “nonsense,” Husseini said.

“Palestinians are in need of security and stability. We want our country. We are considered foreigners in our own cities and homes. Imagine if there were a new law that you couldn’t live in Washington, DC,” Husseini challenged the audience. “A new group of people replaced you. How would you act? What if you were fighting against tanks, heavy artillery and F-16s with pistols and rocks? They are attacking our farms, demolishing our homes, destroying the infrastructure and our main source of food.”

Husseini warned that Palestinians are so outraged that their leadership cannot protect them from Israeli attacks that secular Palestinian leadership may soon collapse, and “the flag may fall from the leaders’ hands” only to be picked up by political or religious extremists. This has already happened in Israel, he noted wryly, with the election of the extremist Sharon.

Husseini called on Washington to be the honest broker helping to resolve the conflict, instead of taking the Israeli position. He urged against moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, calling it “irresponsible.”

“Any move to do so will destroy America’s ability to lead the peace process,” he warned. “No one would be able to stop what would follow.

“The only way to bring stability to the Middle East and the whole world,” he emphasized, “is to solve the Palestinian crisis. There is no way to enter this century in a decent way without having regional cooperation.

“A Palestinian state can be the gateway to real peace in the area,” Husseini continued. “A Palestinian state would be beside an Israeli state within the borders of June 4, 1967.”

He called on the Israelis to resume negotiations based on U.N. Resolution 242 and to adopt the power of logic, not the logic of power. “This is according to international law and U.N. Resolution 242,” he noted, “which the Israelis, the Arabs, the Palestinians, the Americans and the whole world accepted.

“We must not allow what’s going on to kill the hope of peace and the hope of having two capitals in one free access city, Jerusalem,” Husseini urged. “If we deal with Jerusalem the right way and we have the two capitals with full equality between the Palestinians and the Israelis, Jerusalem can be the warm sun of the Middle East. But if we allow this idea to die and allow one side to control Jerusalem, it will be the black hole of the Middle East which can swallow everything, including hopes for peace.”

When asked to comment on President George W. Bush not inviting Palestinian President Yasser Arafat to Washington, Husseini replied, “Bush should invite him quickly. He can’t go on listening only to the Israeli point of view and neglecting the Palestinian. That kind of thing destroyed the peace process.”

Asked about Israel continuing to build Israeli-only roads and expanding settlements and facts on the ground throughout the peace process, without returning promised Palestinian lands, Husseini gave an analogy: “It is like inviting a guest to dinner and saying, ‘the food is too hot for you,’ but you see him eating from your plate…It is not fair.”

—Delinda C. Hanley

U.S. Author/Investigator Charges Intentional Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty

James Bamford, author of Body of Secrets, about the ultra-secret National Security Agency, charged Israel with a deliberate attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967. Speaking at Washington’s National Press Club on May 22, Bamford vigorously refuted Israel’s “tragic accident” explanation for attacking the Liberty, killing 34 Americans and wounding 171 as the electronic spy ship steamed 13 miles off Egypt’s Sinai coast during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

Pointing out that virtually no one at the 32,000-employee NSA believed the Israeli “explanation,” author Bamford noted that on June 8 the weather was sunny, the American flag was flying, USS Liberty was printed in five-foot letters on the ship’s stern, and Israeli planes had flown over several times before the attack began. The Israeli claim that it had mistaken the Liberty for an Egyptian ship three times smaller made no sense. Also not credible was Israel’s claim that the Liberty was steaming at 30 knots, when in fact it was moving at only 3 knots.

The speaker noted that the Liberty had been attacked by machine gun and cannon fire, by napalm and by torpedoes, one of which struck the Liberty, killing 25 Americans. Bamford revealed that, prior to the attack, an NSA plane flying high above the Liberty recorded Hebrew-speaking Israeli pilots talking about a ship down below flying the American flag. The word “Liberty” was not recorded, but in the context the pilots were discussing the Liberty, which they were about to attack.

James Bamford emphatically refuted a suggestion from the floor that an investigation of the Liberty attack already had been made. There had been a look at the possibility of a communications mix-up, he asserted, but none about the attack itself.

An intimation from one member of the large audience that an investigation might put an unfair burden on Israel was refuted by Bamford. He reminded the audience that the United States gives Israel $4 billion a year. Thus, any reasonable request of Israel by the U.S. could not properly be refused.

Asked if the theory in his recently published book was that Israel attacked in order to conceal its massacre of several hundred Egyptian prisoners of war, the author noted that various theories had been advanced to explain the attack. The main thing, he said, was to have an investigation to get at the truth. Whether anyone had the “guts” to do so remained to be seen. But all other attacks on U.S. naval vessels had been investigated, Bamford pointed out, and it was a shame not to investigate the bloody attack on the USS Liberty.

—Andrew I. Killgore