| Dear Readers,
A short documentary, "The Boy from H2", by Helen Yanovsky in collaboration with B'Tselem's field researchers and Camera Project volunteers in al-Khalil (Hebron), will premiere at the 67th Berlinale (9-19 February 2017).
Here is a video expert from the film,
For more information, click here.
Thank you and we hope that you find our newsletter interesting.
The Palestine Chronicle Team |
|
|
LIKE US on FACEBOOK and FOLLOW US on TWITTER |
| Why the Fear-mongering? Only One Democratic State is Possible in Palestine and Israel
By Ramzy Baroud
Long before December 28, when Secretary of State, John Kerry took the podium at the Dean Acheson Auditorium in Washington DC to pontificate on the uncertain future of the two-state solution and the need to save Israel from itself, the subject of a Palestinian state has been paramount. In fact, unlike common belief, the push to establish a Palestinian and a Jewish state side-by-side goes back years before the passing of United Nations Resolution 181 in November 1947. That infamous resolution had called for the partitioning of Palestine into three entities: a Jewish state, a Palestinian state and an international regime to govern Jerusalem. A more thorough reading of history can pinpoint multiple references to the Palestinian (or Arab state) between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The idea of two states is western par excellence. No Palestinian party or leader had ever thought that partitioning the holy land was ever an option. Then, such an idea seemed preposterous, partly because, as Ilan Pappe's 'Ethnic Cleaning of Palestine' shows, "almost all of the cultivated land in Palestine was held by the indigenous population (while) only 5.8% percent was in Jewish ownership in 1947." An earlier, but equally important reference to a Palestinian state was made in the Peel Commission, a British commission of inquiry, led by Lord Peel that was sent to Palestine to investigate the reasons behind the popular strike, uprising and later armed rebellion that began in 1936 and lasted for nearly three years. The "underlying causes of the disturbances" were two, resolved the commission: Palestinian desire for independence, and the "hatred and fear of the establishment of the Jewish national home." The latter was promised by the British government to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland in 1917 which became known as the 'Balfour Declaration.' The Peel Commission recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and a Palestinian state, which would be incorporated into Transjordan, with enclaves reserved for the British Mandate government. In the time between that recommendation eighty years ago, and Kerry's warning that the two-state solution is "in serious jeopardy," little has been done in terms of practical steps to establish a Palestinian state. Worse, the US has used its veto power in the UN repeatedly to impede the establishment of a Palestinian state, as well as utilizing its political and economic might to intimidate others from recognizing (although symbolically) a Palestinian state. It has further played a key role in funding illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem - all of which rendered the existence of a Palestinian state virtually impossible. The issue now is: why does the West continue to use the two-state solution as their political parameter for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while, at the same time ensuring that their own prescription for conflict resolution is never to become a reality? The answer, partly, lies in the fact the two-state solution was never devised for implementation to begin with. Like the 'peace process' and other pretenses, it aimed to promote among Palestinians and Arabs the idea that there is a goal worth striving for, despite being unattainable. But even that goal was itself conditioned on a set of demands that were unrealistic to begin with. Historically, Palestinians had to renounce violence (their armed resistance to Israel's military occupation), consent to various UN resolutions (even if Israel still reject those resolutions), accept Israel's 'right' to exist as a Jewish state, and so on. That yet-to-be-established Palestinian state was also meant to be demilitarized, divided between the West Bank and Gaza, and excluding most of Occupied East Jerusalem. Many new 'creative' solutions were also offered to alleviate any Israeli fears that the nonexistent Palestinian state, in case of its establishment, never pose a threat to Israel. At times, discussions were afoot about a confederation between Palestine and Jordan, and other times, as in the most recent proposal by the head of Jewish Home Party, Israeli Minister Naftali Bennett, making Gaza a state of its own and annexing to Israel 60 percent of the West Bank. And when Israel's allies, frustrated by the rise of the rightwing in Israel and the obstinacy of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, insist that time is running out for a two-state solution, they express their worries in the form of tough love. Israel's settlement activity is "increasingly cementing an irreversible one-state reality," said Kerry in his major policy speech last month. Such a reality would force Israel to either compromise on the Jewish identity of the state (as if having religious/ethnic identities of a modern democratic state is a common precondition) or having to contend with being an Apartheid state (as if such reality doesn't exist anyway.) Kerry warned Israel that it will eventually be left with the option of placing Palestinians "under a permanent military occupation that deprives them of the most basic freedoms," thus paving the ground for a "separate and unequal" scenario. Yet while warnings that a two-state solution possibility is disintegrating, few bothered to try to understand the reality from a Palestinian perspective. For Palestinians, the debate on Israel having to choose between being democratic and Jewish is ludicrous. For them, Israel's democracy applies fully to its Jewish citizens and no one else, while Palestinians have subsisted for decades behind walls, fences, prisons and besieged enclaves, like the Gaza Strip. And with two separate laws, rules and realities applying to two separate groups in the same land, Kerry's 'separate but unequal' Apartheid scenario had taken place the moment Israel was established in 1948. Fed up by the illusions of their own failed leadership, according to a recent poll, two thirds of Palestinians now agree that a two-state solution is not possible. And that margin keeps on growing as fast as the massive illegal settlement enterprise dotting the Occupied West Bank and Jerusalem. This is not an argument against the two-state solution; for the latter merely existed as a ruse to pacify Palestinians, buy time and demarcate the conflict with a mirage-like political horizon. If the US was indeed keen on a two-state solution, it would have fought vehemently to make it a reality, decades ago. That said, it behooves everyone to understand that co-existence in a one democratic state is not a dark scenario that spells doom for the region. It is time to abandon unattainable illusions and focus all energies to foster co-existence, based on equality and justice for all. Indeed, there can be one state between the river and the sea, and that is a democratic state for all of its people, regardless of their ethnicity or religious beliefs. - Dr. Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His books include "Searching Jenin", "The Second Palestinian Intifada" and his latest "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story". His website is www.ramzybaroud.net |
| SPEAK FRENCH? Visit our French website: |
| The Triumpth of 'Settlerism': Fury at Azaria Verdict is Israel's Trump Moment
By Jonathan Cook - Nazareth The United Kingdom has Brexit. The United States, an incoming president Trump. And Israel now has Elor Azaria. It may not have the same ring, but ultimately the turning point could prove as decisive. Two fallacious narratives have greeted the army medic's manslaughter conviction last week, after he was filmed firing a bullet into the head of a wounded and helpless Palestinian, 21-year-old Abdel Fattah Al Sharif. The first says Azaria is a rotten apple, a soldier who lost his moral bearings last March under the pressure of serving in Hebron. The second - popular among liberals in Israel - claims the conviction proves the strength of Israel's rule of law. Even a transgressing soldier will be held accountable by the world's "most moral army". In truth, however, the popular reaction to the military court's decision was far more telling than the decision itself. Only massed ranks of riot police saved the three judges from a lynching by crowds outside. The army top brass have been issued bodyguards. Demands to overrule the court and pardon Azaria are thunderous - and they are being led by prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Azaria is no rogue soldier. He is "everyone's child", according to much of the public. The unexceptional nature of his act is vouched for by the complete indifference of his colleagues as Azaria pulled the trigger. Polls show overwhelming support - 84 per cent - for Azaria among 18- to 24-year-olds, the age of Israel's conscript army. The trial, meanwhile, reflected not the law's sanctity - it is 12 years since the last soldier, a Bedouin, was convicted of manslaughter. It revealed only the growing pressures on Israel. Cameras in phones are making it harder to cover up soldiers' crimes. By prosecuting Azaria in a case where the filmed evidence was unequivocal, Israel hopes to ward off war crimes investigations by the International Criminal Court. As Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea noted, Azaria's defense team also erred. Riding a wave of populist indignation, they accused Azaria's superiors of lying and bullying. Prosecutors had already reduced a murder charge to manslaughter. The court would probably have settled for convicting a repentant Azaria of misusing a firearm. But given the defense's framing of the case, the judges had to choose: side with the soldier or the army. Like Brexit and Trump, Azaria's trial exposed not only a deep social fissure, but also a moment of transition. Those who see a virtuous system punishing a rotten apple are now outnumbered by those who see a rotten system victimising a hero. Polls show the Israeli public's faith plummeting in most institutions, from the courts to the media, which are seen, however wrongly, as dominated by the "extreme left". Only the army is still widely revered. That is in part because so many Israeli parents must entrust their sons and daughters to it. To doubt the army would be to question the foundational logic of "Fortress Israel": that the army is all that prevents Palestinian "barbarians" such as Sharif from storming the gates. But also, unlike those increasingly despised institutions, the army has rapidly adapted and conformed to the wider changes in Israeli society. Rather than settlers, we should speak of "settlerism". There are far more settlers than the 600,000 who live in the settlements. Naftali Bennett, leader of the settlers' Jewish Home Party and education minister, lives in Ranana, a city in Israel, not a settlement. Settlerism is an ideology, one that believes Jews are a "chosen people" whose Biblical rights to the Promised Land trump those of non-Jews such as Palestinians. Polls show 70 per cent of Israeli Jews think they are chosen by God. The settlers have taken over the army, both demographically and ideologically. They now dominate its officer corps and they direct policy on the ground. Azaria's testimony showed how deep this attachment now runs. His company, including his commanders, often spent their free time at the home of Baruch Marzel, a leader of Kach, a group banned in the 1990s for its genocidal anti-Arab platform. Azaria described Marzel and Hebron's settlers as like a "family" to the soldiers. By their very nature, occupying armies are brutally repressive. For decades the army command has given its soldier free rein against Palestinians. But as settler numbers have grown, the army's image of itself has changed too. It has metamorphosed from a citizens' army defending the settlements to a settler militia. The middle ranks now dictate the army's ethos, not the top brass, as ousted defense minister Moshe Yaalon discovered last year when he tried to stand against the swelling tide. This new army is no longer even minimally restrained by concerns about the army's "moral" image or threats of international war crimes investigations. It cares little what the world thinks, much like the new breed of politicians who have thrown their support behind Azaria. The soldier's trial, far from proof of the rule of law, was the last gasp of a dying order. His sentence, due in the next few days, is likely to be lenient to appease the public. If the conviction is nullified by a pardon, the settlers' victory will be complete. (A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.) - Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Visit: www.jonathan-cook.net. |
| What the Azaria Trial Tells Us (Again) about Israel
By Jeremy Salt The injustice in the trial of Elor Azaria begins with the charge, manslaughter. In March, 2016, Azaria walked up to the body of a severely wounded Palestinian, Abd al Fatah al Sharif, and shot him in the head as he lay on the ground. Video of the scene shows a bare-chested Israeli soldier being treated for minor wounds received during an alleged stabbing attack in Hebron by Al Sharif and another Palestinian, Ramzi Aziz al Qasrawi. Whereas the soldier received immediate medical attention none was summoned for the two Palestinians. In any case, the precise circumstances of the clash between the soldiers and the two Palestinians were soon overtaken by what followed when Azaria arrived on the scene six minutes later, cocked his rifle and fired. Al Qasrawi was fatally wounded and died on the spot. Al Sharif was seriously wounded, but, according to a pathologist giving evidence at Azaria's trial, the wound was not fatal and he would have survived had he been given medical attention. Instead, Azaria, an IDF medic, put a bullet into his head, remarking, according to the evidence presented in court, 'he needs to die.' Azaria was not imprisoned but kept under 'open arrest' an at army base, which gave him freedom of movement around the base if not the freedom to leave it. Even the charge of manslaughter rather than murder brought cries of outrage from his supporters, not just his family and friends but the settler lobby and the extremist right figures dominating Israeli politics, notably Avigdor Lieberman and Naftali Bennett, whose attitude can be summed up in the remark he made in 2013 that 'I've killed lots of Arabs in my life and there's no problem with that.' So, if Elor Azaria shoots a wounded Palestinian terrorist, what's the problem with that? He should not have been charged with anything but rather should have been commended for his bravery and his quick action in neutralizing a wounded but possibly still dangerous 'terrorist.' Clearly Azaria should have been charged with murder. He deliberately shot a wounded man in the head and that is not 'manslaughter.' Although he claimed to believe the Palestinian may have been a wearing a suicide belt, this was dismissed in the court hearing as one of the many lies he was telling. No, in truth, Al Sharif was a Palestinian who needed to die for no other real reason than that he was a Palestinian. Azaria's behavior was not the slightest bit aberrant but rather representative of extreme Zionist thinking about the Palestinians that begins with the denial of their rights and often ends in their death. Because they have no right to be on the land they have no right of resistance or even the right to a fair trial, if such a thing can be imagined for a people living under occupation. Accordingly, 'terrorists' who are only wounded should be finished off on the spot. No soldier or civilian should ever be convicted just for doing their duty or for shooting any Palestinian who even raises their suspicions. Immediately after the murder Azaria was videoed shaking hands with Baruch Marzel. The affinities between them are clear. Azaria believes Palestinians need to die and so does Marzel. Hebron is a city in which unarmed Palestinians live daily at the mercy not just of Zionist police or soldiers but of heavily armed settlers, who swagger through the streets with loaded assault rifles over their shoulder, provoking the Palestinians and ready to kill them at the slightest opportunity. The American-born settler Marzel is a leader of this cowardly pack. Formerly associated with Rabbi Meir Kahane's Kach party he now forms equally vicious political alliances of his own. He has celebrated at the grave of Baruch Goldstein, the fellow American colonist who massacred 29 Palestinians and wounded many more in the Ibrahimi Mosque in 1994. He has openly called for the murder of Uri Avnery and other leftists and he hates homosexuals with the same vehemence. Marzel was on the scene soon after the shooting of Al Sharif and was then filmed shaking hands with Azaria, in friendship or on a job well done or a combination of both. The trial was stricken with lies and dubious witness statements. It was revealed that an ambulance orderly had kicked a knife lying on the ground closer towards Al Sharif and had tampered with other evidence. This is hardly the first time that a weapon has been deliberately placed close to the hand of a Palestinian killed by soldiers, police or settlers, so an ambulance orderly fixing the evidence to help out the murderer of a Palestinian should not surprise. The ambulance was called for the slightly wounded Israeli soldier, not the seriously wounded Palestinians. This is not exceptional but typical. Many wounded Palestinians have died when they might have lived had an ambulance been summoned in time. They die where they fall and are eventually dragged away without any respect for their human dignity. The witnesses for the defense included a retired pathologist who claimed that Al Sharif had already died when he was shot by Azaria. His credentials were marred by the revelation that he had been involved in organ harvesting. A surgeon also claimed that Al Sharif was already dead when shot in the head, but it turned out that he was a cardiologist, not a forensic medical specialist, whom the prosecution alleged had been fired from the Hadassah medical center for falsifying a document. Another witness claimed that when Azaria shot Al Sharif in the head he didn't shoot to kill. Part of the defense case rested on the argument that as other police and soldiers had killed Palestinians before in similar circumstances, why should their man be facing charges? And this of course is true, because Palestinians have been murdered by soldiers, police, members of the intelligence services and settlers going back to the birth of the state with few charges ever being laid, and with these always resulting in risible sentences and early release once the heat is off. Representatives of the IDF argued that Azaria's deed represented a grave breach of the army's values and standards when the opposite is true. Azaria's premeditated murder is perfectly consistent with the IDF's behavior across occupied Palestine ever since 1948. Had Azaria not been filmed the army can be relied upon to have cooked up a story that the wounded man made some kind of movement indicating that he was still a threat that needed 'neutralizing.' Then Azaria would not have been charged, just as numerous others who have killed Palestinians in questionable circumstances have not been charged. The problem was not the deed itself but the camera recording the deed. The brutality of the army has been on display on the West Bank, across Gaza and in Lebanon for decades. It is not just the pilots or tank commanders who have shelled apartment blocks or fired white phosphorus shells into compounds where civilians are sheltering or have shot down dozens of young police on their graduation day but the individual soldiers who have casually shot Palestinian civilians, targeting even old people and small children. The army command structure has changed radically since Israel was driven out of Lebanon by Hezbollah in 2000 and was pushed back again in 2006. The number of settler zealots appointed to senior positions has increased in the apparent belief that fighting for the Lord is more likely to be effective as a motive force on the battlefield than fighting for the land. The 'Dahiya strategy' dominates, according to which it will not be just one suburb of Beirut that will be destroyed in the next war with Hezbollah but all Lebanon. This plan for the blanket destruction of civilians and civilian infrastructure has been played out in Gaza where it is not just the 'terrorists' but every Palestinian that members of Israel's 'defense forces' are taught to regard as an enemy they should kill if necessary. Thus the soldier who kills a Palestinian innocently crossing the street in Gaza or picking vegetables on the other side of the fence is most unlikely to be charged. The guilty verdict against Azaria reignited protests across the country. Sentence is expected to be delivered on January 15. The maximum term for manslaughter would be 20 years but a far lighter term is expected and if the past is any guide, Azaria could be expected to be released into some form of home detention once the furor has died down. Calls for a pardon came from Avigdor Lieberman, who campaigned for Azaria during the legal proceedings before being appointed Israel's 'defense' minister, and from Naftali Bennett, the head of the Jewish Home Party. Netanyahu added his voice to theirs, describing the conviction as 'a difficult and painful day, first and foremost for Elor, Israel's soldiers [and] many citizens and parents of soldiers, among them me.' How much more difficult, one imagines, would it be for the parents of the murdered man who have lost a son forever and know that the justice system will again not actually serve justice. The verdict of guilty was handed down as Israel was reacting with outrage to the resolution of the UN Security Council affirming the complete illegality of the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Netanyahu responded by reprimanding the ambassadors of governments that voted for the resolution and by cutting Israel's already paltry financial contribution to the UN, an organisation which it loathes. Israel also directed its anger against Barrack Obama for allowing the resolution to pass by abstaining from the vote. It is true that the abstention was a calculated slap in the face for Netanyahu, who never passed up an opportunity to humiliate Obama but is congenitally incapable of rolling with any punch. Only recently the US had signed off in a colossal aid package to Israel of $38 billion but it seems that the mouth that bites the hand that feeds it never stops biting even when it is American. Again the message sent forth is that it is not Israel that is out of step with the world: it is the world that is out of step with Israel and the world that has to change. Far from reconciling itself with world opinion Israel deliberately and aggressively goes further in the opposite direction. The coming year will mark the anniversary of three important historical developments: the issuing of the Balfour Declaration (November 2, 1917); the Zionist onslaught on Egypt and Syria known as the 'Six Day War' (June 5-June 10); and within that time frame, the occupation, on June 7, of east Jerusalem. These events will be the occasion for major celebrations by the Zionists and reflective mourning by the Palestinians. Consistent with the theme that the West Bank and east Jerusalem were not occupied but 'liberated', the Israeli government's propaganda campaign will center not on universal rights as proclaimed in countless laws, conventions and treaties, in this context specifically the rights of the Palestinian people, but on the fraudulent 'right' of the 'Jewish people' to hold, settle and, undoubtedly, eventually annex the territory seized during war in 1967. That in Israel and around the world 'Jewish people' are dissociating themselves from any such 'right' is immaterial to Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman, Benyamin Netanyahu, Baruch Marzel and their ideological cohorts. It should be remarked, however, that these people should not be regarded as some kind of ideological aberration. Zionism is and always was an extreme ideology and they are its natural outgrowth. The aspirations of the current generation of 'extremists' are no different in practice from the aspirations of the founding generation of 'moderate' Labor Zionists. Going back as far as Theodor Herzl mainstream Zionism wanted nothing less than all of Palestine. No room was ever allowed for the Palestinians except in the mendacious statements of Zionist leaders. 1948 was merely a step along the way and from the beginning of the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1967, 'moderate' Zionists have colonized just as zealously as the 'extremists.' It was not just Menahim Begin and his ideological acolytes but the 'moderates' who debased every peace opportunity that came along. Thus while 'moderate' Zionists are railing at the 'extremists' they should know where to look in assigning responsibility for the present situation. A recent poll carried out by the Israel Democracy Institute found that 65 per cent of Jewish Israelis support Elon Azaria's claim of self-defense notwithstanding its rejection by the army and the court. Put this together with the fury at the passage of the UNSC resolution and with the complete rejection of a one-state or a two-state solution is it is very clear that the state of Israel is speeding towards a dead end, no matter how self-assured and confident it may appear right now. - Jeremy Salt taught at the University of Melbourne, at Bosporus University in Istanbul and Bilkent University in Ankara for many years, specializing in the modern history of the Middle East. Among his recent publications is his 2008 book, The Unmaking of the Middle East. A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands (University of California Press). He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. |
| Kerry Ignores Israel Fury to Attend Paris Peace Conference
US Secretary of State John Kerry will attend a Middle East peace conference on Sunday next week along with seventy other countries, in spite of Israeli objections. The announcement is certain to further anger Israeli officials who were dismayed by Kerry's highly critical speech two weeks ago and the US' refusal to veto a UN Security Council resolution which declared all Israeli settlements illegal. Ties between the two have since fallen to a new low, but Israel is looking for a more sympathetic hearing from US President-elect Donald Trump after he takes power on 20 January. The conference, which was originally scheduled for December 2016, is part of a French initiative to revive the stalled peace process. The first meeting was held in June 2016 where senior Western diplomats and their Arab counterparts agreed to work on organising a peace conference by the end of the year. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to take part in the talks, while Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh welcomed the French initiative and said that the Palestinians would accept an invitation to attend. Around 70 countries will gather for the conference and they are expected to throw their weight behind calls for a halt to settlement building as well as to forge ahead with a negotiated peace. (MEMO, PC, Social Media) |
 There are about 3,000 Christians in Gaza. Approximately one half are members of the Eastern Orthodox Church.... Jan 10 2017 / Read More » / Edit / Israeli authorities demolished 10 homes belonging to Palestinian citizens of Israel in the city of Qalansawe in central Israel on Tuesday morning, prompting a defeated... Jan 10 2017 / Read More » / Edit / Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, Head of PLO Dept. of Culture & Information speaks to CNN following US Secretary of State John Kerry Middle East speech and... Jan 9 2017 / Read More » / Edit / "I love Gaza very much and I wish if I could spend my whole life here," said Ruqia Hussien Dumir, a 26-year old Turkish student... Jan 9 2017 / Read More » / Edit / Secret filming has revealed a senior political officer in the Israeli Embassy talking about how he would like to "take down" UK foreign office minister Alan... Jan 8 2017 / Read More » / Edit /
|
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment