New Jersey Solidarity Brings Array of Speakers on Palestine to Rutgers

By Jane Adas

New Jersey Solidarity has been active lately in bringing to the Rutgers University community speakers on issues relating to Palestine. On Feb. 9 Ramzy and Suzanne Baroud, founder and managing editor respectively of the online publication <PalestineChronicle.com>, came to discuss the recently published Searching Jenin: Eyewitness Accounts of the Israeli Invasion, which Ramzy edited (and which is available through the AET Book Club). The couple felt a heavy responsibility, Suzanne explained, since the book may be the only record of what happened in Jenin by those who experienced it.

According to Ramzy Baroud, the Jenin story started not in April 2002, but in 1948, when so many Palestinians became refugees. The U.N. built the Jenin refugee camp in 1953 for displaced families who had deeds and keys to the homes from which they were forced to flee.

Baroud’s grandfather was a refugee from the village of Beit Daras, which was first attacked by Zionist forces in March 1948 and “cleansed” three months later. He died a refugee, but always said he was blessed to be fighting for justice in Palestine. Beit Daras, Baroud said, is only one mile from the Gaza Strip, but separated by unfulfilled U.N. resolutions.

Baroud was at work on a book about the 1982 massacre of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon when Israel invaded Jenin on April 3, 2002. He was struck, he said, by the similarities of the two atrocities. In both cases, the invasion was preceded by intense shelling, and no one was allowed in or out of the camps for days. Afterwards the U.S. defended Israel’s actions, Arab governments backed off, and the world was silent.

Secretary of State Colin Powell was in Ramallah just after the invasion. He was there to present President Yasser Arafat with a list of U.S. demands, but he refused to visit Jenin, only half an hour away. On April 20, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1405, calling for a fact-finding mission to be sent to Jenin. Israel, however, refused to accept the mission, which was cancelled on May 1.

In compliance with a General Assembly resolution passed a week later, Secretary-General Kofi Annan released a report Aug. 1, based on secondhand accounts, in which he found that both Palestinian militants and the Israeli army had put civilians in harm’s way. Such a conclusion, Baroud pointed out, erroneously assumes that Palestinian fighters and civilians are two distinct entities. Not one person interviewed was unhappy or ashamed about resisting the Israeli army. Moreover, he said, Palestinian fighters often are armed only with homemade weapons, some consisting of matches and tubes, against one of the world’s strongest armies.

Noting that Israel clearly doesn’t want the refugee camp to be rehabilitated, Baroud said that Palestinians released from prison had to sign papers promising not to return to Jenin. Israel refused the United Arab Emirates’ offer to rebuild the camp, and when UNRWA laid a concrete base for a few new homes, Israeli tanks demolished it within hours. On Nov. 22 Israeli troops shot and killed Iain Hook, a British U.N. official who was in Jenin to oversee rebuilding.

The people of Jenin have many needs, Baroud concluded, but the greatest is for the truth to be told. Searching Jenin is a major contribution to that end.

Palestine, Iraq and Globalization

On Feb. 23 Palestinian economist Dr. Adel Samara, whose most recent book is Epidemic of Globalization: Ventures in World Order, Arab Nation and Zionism, spoke at Rutgers about Palestine and Iraq in the context of globalization, which he described as the attempt of a new empire to control old imperialist countries.

According to Dr. Samara’s analysis, the coming war against Iraq is being launched by three groups: the ruling capitalist class in the United States, the Zionist structure, and Arab regimes that are supported and protected by U.S. economic domination. The U.S. aims to conquer markets, control the oil fields and impose U.S. prices, Samara argued. This is partly because of the economic crisis and collapse of financial markets in the U.S. that predate the 9/11 attack. Samara described the concomitant reduced budgets for health, education, and infrastructure as an internal war against middle class and poor Americans.

Israel’s aim, he continued, is to be integrated in the Middle East through domination—which, Samara contended, Arab leaders may accept but the people will not. Israel hopes that war against Iraq will bring about a new Palestinian regime, even more moderate and dependent on Israel than the existing one, which Samara described as a compradore regime. In his view, the Oslo process was not a peace for people, but a means of indirect domination for capitalists. The process was designed to benefit the Israeli economy by denying the Palestinian Authority control over its borders and the right to export and import freely.

Because of the current siege, not only around the West Bank and Gaza as a whole, but also around every city, town, village and refugee camp, economic exchange within the Palestinian territories has become impossible. Israeli products, however, can pass unimpeded through all barriers into Palestinian markets. In fact, Palestinian consumption of Israeli goods actually has risen during the second intifada.

Samara maintains that the occupation itself is more of an economic than a religious project, the main goal of which is to destroy the Palestinian economy and infrastructure. According to a recent World Bank survey, 70 percent of Palestinians are unable to reach their work places, 24 percent of Palestinian homes have been damaged, 22 percent of workshops and 14 percent of equipment have been destroyed, and unemployment stands at 60 percent. Under these conditions, Samara asked, why is the U.S. demanding that Palestinians not resist the occupation?

Civil Rights in the U.S., South Africa and Palestine

Imam Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, spoke at Rutgers March 5 about civil rights struggles in America, South Africa, and Palestine. He has had considerable experience with the former two as an activist in both the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements here in the U.S. Once, Bray said, when he characterized Israel as an apartheid country, a Jewish friend objected, “but Israel is a democracy.” So are the U.S. and South Africa, Bray responded—democracies can surely be racist. When he looks at Ramallah, he told the audience, he sees Birmingham, Alabama, and when he looks at Jenin, he sees Soweto, South Africa.

Describing his personal experience of segregation in the U.S., Bray said it begins with the tales of the elders describing injustices of the past, resistance, and its consequences: beatings, lynchings, humiliation and degradation. Then comes the reality. For Bray, this was in 1955, when he was watching “Gunsmoke” at his grandparents’ house. A huge fireball broke through the window, followed by gunshots. The attack was an attempt to intimidate and make an example of Bray’s grandfather, a freedom fighter who was registering people to vote—in the same way, Bray noted, the Israeli army destroys the homes of those who resist occupation. His grandparents did not call the police or fire department, because they knew that those were the same people as the attackers under their white sheets—much as Palestinians beset by settler violence do not expect Israeli military police to protect them.

When Bray was growing up, he recalled, blacks lived in segregated areas as though they were under occupation. They lived with a feeling of containment under inferior living standards, he said, and it was dangerous for blacks to go into white neighborhoods. Freedom fighters were called Communists, as Palestinians are terrorists—the most subversive and dangerous labels of their time. The underlying assumption was that it isn’t natural to want to be free, so “they” must be manipulated by others.

All of this leads to rage. In the 1960s, American cities exploded. “The Negroes are rioting,” the media screamed, but according to Bray, it was an intifada.

Martin Luther King, Jr., saw a global connection to oppression, which Bray summed up as “same soup, different bowls.” In the United States, apartheid South Africa, and Palestine, the issue was and is injustice. King also said the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

Thomas Jefferson understood when justice becomes a mockery. He recognized the contradiction between his words, “All men are created equal” and the fact that he owned slaves and that his children were slaves. “I tremble for my nation when I think that God is just,” Jefferson wrote. President Bush, Bray said, also has contradictions. Bush says Jesus is his favorite philosopher, but, Bray pointed out, Jesus did not say, “blessed are the corporate raiders and the warmongers.” Bray said he, too, trembles for his nation when its administration robs the poor to pay billions for bombs and when it sends billions to Israel to continue killing, maiming, and destroying Palestinians.

Columbia Law Hosts Talk on “Wars Against Rogue States”

New York’s Columbia Law School provided the venue for a March 3 talk on “Wars Against Rogue States” by Roger Normand, executive director of the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), and Dr. Horst Fischer, academic director of the Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict at Ruhr University in Germany and a member of the faculty of law at Leiden University in the Netherlands.

In addressing the concepts of “rogue state” and “axis of evil” in the context of international law, Dr. Fischer referred to the United Nations charter, in which the victors of World War II reserved the right to use force against Japan and Germany—as states considered outside the law at the time—without returning to the Security Council. In no other case has a state been considered outside the law. In a legal context, Fischer said, a term should have global use if it is to be accepted by the world community. If this were the case with “rogue state,” he pointed out, Syria, for example, would have the right to attack Israel because Israel has violated international law, failed to comply with U.N. resolutions, and has weapons of mass destruction.

From a European perspective, Fischer described the style of the debate in the U.S. media about war against Iraq as characterized more by allegations than arguments. It reminded him, he said, of European tabloid coverage of sporting events. Moreover, he added, he has seen no public discussion of international law, nor any reference to what has happened to Iraqis since the last Gulf war. Instead, he said, the U.S. media focus on how many troops have been sent and how much money the war will cost.

A difference in European and American perceptions is whether Resolution 687, passed at the end of the last Gulf war, was an interruption of war or an end of it. The U.S. administration seems to view 667 as a cease-fire—i.e., temporary in nature—whereas Europeans view it as a peace treaty. Because it was signed by the United Nations Security Council, Fischer said, 667 does not permit any state to resume hostilities without the Security Council’s explicit consent. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the country wanting war.

Another divide between Europe and the U.S., Fischer continued, is the concept of preemptive self-defense. Historically, the world community has found it unlawful when countries have resorted to preemptive strikes. Even if the concept were accepted, Fischer doubted whether the criteria are fulfilled in the case of Iraq. There is no existing aggression by Iraq against any other state, he noted, no imminent and overwhelming threat, and there is time for deliberation.

Roger Normand had recently returned from a CESR research mission to Iraq—the fifth such trip since 1991—to study the likely humanitarian consequences of another war. In his opinion, we were days or weeks from a major military conflict that no one, except Israel, wants and that has the potential to undermine the entire United Nations system and international law.

Even as he was speaking, Normand noted, the United States was at the U.N. bribing and bullying for a new resolution to give Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield “constructive ambiguity” to justify an assault against Iraq. Failing that, President George W. Bush already has told the world that it doesn’t matter what either the Security Council or the weapons inspectors do. Normand described it as a lose/lose situation for the United Nations: if Rumsfield got his resolution, the U.N. would have violated its own charter, and if Washington went to war without a resolution, the U.N. would be seen as irrelevant.

According to Normand, a U.S. war on Iraq is illegal in every respect. In terms of means and methods, U.S. military plans violate two principles: that there should be a distinction between military and civilian targets, and that there should be proportionality, meaning no excessive consequences. “Shock and Awe,” which envisages massive U.S. bombardment by 3,000 missiles in the first two days of the war, did not bode well for the Iraqi population.

In 1991, then-Gen. Colin Powell said that U.S. bombing of electrical generating stations and water pumping stations had “negligible military impact.” But, Normand pointed out, it had enormous civilian consequences. More than 100,000 civilians died within months of the war, not because of direct bombing, but as a consequence of military targeting of the civilian infrastructure.

On his recent trip to the area, Normand found the civilian population much more vulnerable than it was in 1991. Sixty percent of Iraqis, he said, depend on food distribution from the oil-for-food program, which will end once war starts. Baghdad, a city of five million people, will be without food, medicine or clean water—and, because of high-power microwave weapons, without means of communications. Normand predicts a catastrophic collapse of civilian life support systems as the result of a U.S. attack.

Attorney Chibli Mallat Presents “The Ariel Sharon Case”

Attorney Chibli Mallat discussed “The Case of Ariel Sharon” Feb. 28 at Princeton University, as part of its Encounter Series. Mallat was one of the initiators of the June 2001 complaint filed in Belgium on behalf of 23 survivors of the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre against Sharon and Amos Yaron, as well as some Lebanese Phalangists.

The case experienced a setback on June 26, 2002, when the Belgian Court of Appeals rejected it on the basis that the accused was not on Belgian soil. But that decision was reversed Feb. 12, 2003 by the Court of Cassation, which recognized the full universal scope of the 1993 Belgian legislation granting international jurisdiction. Mallat described this as a new chapter in international law with large implications for international accountability. The only restriction on the decision derives from customary international law protecting sitting heads of state, meaning any action against Sharon is deferred until he no longer is prime minister of Israel.

Mallat described the Sabra and Shatila massacre as a crime against humanity. The victims were civilians from 12 nationalities, including Lebanese, Palestinian, Syrian, and Bangladeshi. It is distinct from other cases, he explained, in that it took place over three days rather than a few hours, followed by the systematic disappearing of hundreds of young men, and that the “machine de guerre” involved two nationalities—Lebanese and Israeli.

Mallat discussed the daunting dimension of politics, with its double standards and tendency to compromise justice, and quoted Menachem Begin, who said at the time, “Goy kill goy and Jews are blamed.”

To those who had come in a combative mood, Mallat noted that, had the case been about Rwanda, there would be jubilation. The case is not against societies, he emphasized, but against individuals, and, for that reason, the Feb. 12 decision stipulated that Sharon and Yaron must have personal attorneys, not Israeli state lawyers. Expressing regret that, although there were huge demonstrations in Israel in 1982, today few Israelis have rallied behind the case, he said that the only exception was a letter of sympathy sent by Israeli women’s organizations on the 20th anniversary of the massacre.

Mallat anticipated what he termed the “inevitable questions”: Why Belgium? Why Sharon and not, say, Qaddafi? Why now? And indeed, those questions were asked at the conclusion of his talk, even though he already had addressed them.

As to why Belgium, Mallat said it would have been fine if the Lebanese or Israeli court systems—or the International Court of Justice—had taken up the issue. So far, however, no perpetrators have been tried and no victim has been compensated in any way. He quoted Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as saying that when a nation-state fails to address a crime, then international jurisdiction is appropriate. As to why Sharon and not some other perpetrator of crimes against humanity, Mallat stated that justice is silenced by relativity. And as to why now, he asked how one would tell the victims that justice has been postponed for a political process.

The Sabra and Shatila case, Mallat concluded, has triggered a revolt against immunity for crimes in Lebanon, and perhaps will also in Israel and other countries. What is happening in Belgium, he said, is a wake-up call to the world for international justice as an alternative to international violence.

Jane Adas is a free-lance writer based in the New York City metropolitan area.