Nakba, the Palestinian catastrophe (1948)

'We've gone way beyond Apartheid'

nospam@example.com (nakba) — Sat, 05 May 2012 18:25:59 +0000

I caught up with Jeff Halper, long time Israeli peace activist, director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and author of numerous books, while he was on a European speaking tour. Here is what he had to say about the situation in Palestine/Israel:

Frank Barat: I'd like to start by talking about what's happening in Jerusalem. When I came in 2007, you took us to Silwan, explaining the huge house demolition plan the Israeli government had in mind, telling us that thanks to the efforts of many and including an intervention by the US, the demolitions didn't happen. Today, nonetheless, it looks like the demolitions will take place. Could you give us an update on this, and also give us a broader view of what people now often refer to as the 'ethnic cleansing' of Jerusalem?

Jeff Halper: Well let me give you a broader picture about the whole thing and then we can go back and put it into context. I think what's coming down the pipeline is that Israel today has basically finished this. We've gone beyond the occupation. The Palestinians have been pacified and from Israel's point of view the whole conflict, the whole situation has been normalised.

Netanyahu went last month to Washington to meet with Obama. When he came back his adviser was asked what was new about this meeting. And his adviser said, "This is the first time in memory that an Israeli Prime Minister met with a US president and that the Palestinian issue was not even mentioned, it never came out." So, in that situation where the US is really paralysed because Netanyahu has both parties in congress and Obama does not want to do anything - Netanyahu is going to make the last move in nailing this whole thing down.

Israel could well annex Area C. Area C is 60 per cent of the West Bank. Now, the European council general in Jerusalem and Ramallah, a couple of months ago sent a report to the EU, saying that Israel has forcibly expelled the Palestinians from Area C. Forcible expulsion is hard language for European diplomats to use.

So Area C has less than 5 per cent of the Palestinian population. In 1967 the Jordan Valley had about 250,000 people. Today, it's less than 50,000. So the Palestinians have either been driven out of the country, especially the middle class, or they have been driven to Area A and Area B. That's where 96 or 97 per cent of them are.

The Palestinian population has been brought down low enough, there is probably somewhere around 125,000 Palestinians in Area C, so Israel could annex Area C and give them full citizenship. In other words Israel can absorb 125,000 Palestinians without upsetting the demographic balance, you see. And then, what is the world going to say? It's not apartheid; Israel has given them full citizenship. So I think that Israel feels it could get away with that. No one cares about what's happening in Area A and Area B. If they want to declare a state, they can declare a state. Israel has no interest in Ramallah, Nablus and Hebron.

The US, by the way, has already agreed that the settlement blocks are part of Israel. Annexing Area C does not go so much beyond the settlement blocks. It's just pushing the envelope a little bit more. Then you come to Jerusalem. I think what Israel is going to do is that it will give the Palestinians in the north and the south, in Beit Hanina, Shuafat, Tubat... it will allow them to have Palestinian citizenship. Israel, in a sense, gets rid of 100,000 Palestinians. What the government has already indicated it was going to do is that the wall around Jerusalem will be the border. So what's happening today is that because of the house demolitions and the policy of freezing the constructions Israel is allowing - it's still illegal of course - but Shuaffat and Anata, have now been cut out by a huge wall a huge terminal.

The tremendous building behind the wall is still in Jerusalem, so Palestinians are moving from inside the wall into that area. And the same thing is true in the north. So you are getting maybe another 100,000 or so Palestinians to move into those areas. Then, once they are there, Israel cuts them off. Israel now says the wall is the border, we give up Anata, Shuafat - and so in a sense, what you've done is join those areas into Area C. So now Israel has the whole country, its isolated the 97 per cent of the Palestinians into area A and B. Jerusalem is now 80 to 85 per cent Jewish because these big Palestinian populations you either got them out completely like Shuafat and Anata or inside the wall you've given them Palestinian citizenship so you don't have to deal with them. So Israel retains kind of that centre.

And it's over.

In other words, we're finished. Israel is now from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, the Palestinians have been confined in Areas A and B or in small enclaves in East Jerusalem, and that's it. Now the wrinkle is that I think they will do this with the agreement of the Palestinian Authority because Fayyad is a neoliberal.

Fayyad is saying to Israel, we don't need territory. If you give us economic space, to do business, and our business class can do okay and we can trickle down to our working classes, it's good enough. So we don't need Area C. As a matter of a fact what the European Counsel General said in its report is that the Palestinian Authority has given up Area C. Completely. When government or agencies come to the Palestinian Authority for investments, the PA tell them invest only in Area A and Area B. Do not invest in Area C. They've given up C.

The idea is that Israel allows trade, to move freely between these Palestinian enclaves. I call it "viable apartheid". I think Fayyad has developed a viable apartheid, saying that in the neoliberal world we need economic space, not territorial space. You let us move our goods freely into the Arab world, you give us an access to the Israeli market, and it's fine. In other words, all the developments, like this new city Rawabi for upper-class Palestinians, are in the contours of Area A and B. They are now building a highway from Ramallah to Jericho; the Japanese are building it with the PA. Then either the Japanese or USAID will build from Ramallah to Bethlehem so greater Jerusalem, with E1, will be incorporated into Israel.

I think you can get into a deal where Israel annexes Area C, it's taken Jerusalem, they'll give the Palestinians something symbolic like control of Haram Al Sharif/The Temple Mount, you can put up a capital in Abu Dis again. Basically, what I am saying is not only that they are they going to nail this down but they will do it with the agreement of the Palestinian Authority. If you give Israeli citizenship to the Palestinians in Area C and the PA agrees, that's economic peace that Netanyahu and Fayyad talk about. So that's the big picture.

FB: So when people talk about a Palestinian state on 22 per cent of historical Palestine, it's not even that, right? The number is much smaller.

JH: Yes, what Fayyad is saying is our state does not have to be on any particular amount of territory; our state is an economic state and we can work around you annexing this and that because we can make our cities. The idea is that Israel we'll give them a bit of Area C, to put the enclaves a little bit more together. So you still have the cantons, of the north, the south and Gaza. So they will still be cantonised but what Fayyad is saying is we can make a go of that. Both Netanyahu and Fayyad have moved from a territorial conception of two states to an economic conception of two states, which is a whole different kind of thing.

The problem that the bosses have is how to sell that to the Palestinian people. But it seems to me that this is what is coming down the pipeline.

What Israel is relying on, maybe the PA as well, I don't know how to put this exactly. Israel feels that the Palestinians have been defeated. It's over. Resistance is impossible because of the Israeli army, the Palestinian proxy army, the wall, I mean, you can't mount a third intifada. Israel policy since the Iron Wall of 1923 has been despair.

I wrote an article about this once "Despair as a policy". The Zionists have always always said that once the Arabs despair, and Jabotinsky put it interestingly "despair of the land of Israel ever becoming Palestine" - that was the end, victory for them. Israel feels that it's what we have got now. If you go today to the West Bank, Gaza might be different, you'll hear the people say that they don't care anymore, let me have a job, let me live my life and I'll be happy. In a sense, Fayyad feels he can respond to that.

FB: Some pogroms took place recently when a group of Beitar soccer fans attacked Palestinian workers in a shopping mall. Were those people a few bad apples, or are these type of events do indeed say something about Israeli society?

JH: They are more than bad apples. They are not completely Israeli society either. This football team in Jerusalem is connected to the Likud. In Israel many football clubs are associated with political parties. There is a very close relation between the ideology of Likud and Begin and the Beitar football team. They see the Arabs as the enemy. So it reflects about a third of the Israeli public, that is very committed to expansion, settlements, see the Arabs as the enemies. It reflects that.

You know, in Beitar, their chants, it's not just the pogroms. They chant everytime their team scores a goal, "Death to the Arabs". That's what 20,000 people chant. Beitar for example has never ever had an Arab player. The Arabs are beginning to be more prominent in Israeli football teams. Not in Beitar Jerusalem. This pogrom is kind of an extension of this. It's all in the context of kids, for the most part its kids that have seen Israel moved into a neoliberal economy, more and more Thatcherite, and you have tremendous income disparity in Israel. Israel is now in the OECD, it has one of the highest income disparity I think, maybe the US excluded.

Kids have got no real future, that's part of the context too. Those kids come from the housing projects, very much like National Front in France or EDL in England, people that only have this racist emotional outlet for their frustrations, and football is great for that. It channels anger away from the government. That's why they sponsor football teams!

FB: How important are the words we use, in your opinion when it comes to Palestine/Israel? Ilan Pappe recently told me that we should rethink our dictionary/vocabulary. Can we objectively still talk about peace/occupation? Shouldn't we talk about the right to resist and apartheid instead?

JH: For sure. We deal a lot with words in our analysis. There are two words, because I think occupation is an old word. We are way beyond occupation. I think we are also way beyond apartheid. There are two words that capture the political reality but don't have any legal substance today. One of them is Judaisation. It's a word that the government uses, to Judaise Jerusalem, the Galilee, so that's a Judaisation process that really is the heart of what's going on. But it has no legal reference. So one of our project, we're working with Michael Sfard and some other lawyers, is to try to introduce those terms into the discourse with the idea of trying to give them some legal frame.

We have to try to match the political process, the political reality, because it is unprecedented in the world. Another term is "warehousing" because I think that captures what's going on better than apartheid. Warehousing is permanent. Apartheid recognises that there is another side. With warehousing it's like prisons. There is no other side. There is us, and then there are these people that we control, they have no rights, they have no identity, they're inmates. It's not political, it's permanent, static. Apartheid you can resist. The whole brilliance of warehousing is that you can't resist because you're a prisoner. It's like prisons. Prisoners can rise in the prison yards but prison guards have all the rights in the world to put them down. That's what Israel has come to.

They are terrorists and we have the right to put them down. In a sense Israel has succeeded with the international community, and the US especially to take out of this situation the political. It's now solely an issue of security, just like in prisons. It's another concept that does not have any legal reference today but we'd like to put that in because warehousing is not only in Israel. Warehousing exists all over the capitalist world. That's why I am writing about Global Palestine. I'm saying that Palestine is a microcosm of what's happening around the world.

FB: You recently wrote: "Unlike most of my comrades, I do not think that activism by itself can achieve political results...until a reinvigorated Palestine National Council (PNC) or other representative agency can be constituted, a daunting but truly urgent task, Palestinian civil society might coalesce enough to create a kind of interim leadership bureau". Is this being done in your opinion and what could we, solidarity activists, do better?

JH: No, and that's the problem. Because even if there is a collapse of this political situation we are talking about and new possibilities emerge, like a one state, bi-national or regional confederation, all kinds of possibilities that don't exist today. And let's say BDS and resistance have an effect. I really believe this conflict is unsustainable. I don't think Israel can win. So if Israel's project collapses, then what? Because today, there is no Palestinian agency.

The only Palestinian agency is the PA - and it has no legitimacy. And then, in a way, to tell you the truth, I was a little bit upset with the Palestinian Left when Abu Mazen (President Mahmoud Abbas) went to the UN to ask for recognition of Palestine and they undercut him. Not because they were wrong; I could agree with them. I agree that it does not help, but don't do that two weeks before he goes. This whole thing was gelling for a year. So you say, a year, nine months before, no. We don't accept this. You don't undercut the person who for most people represents Palestine two weeks before he goes. Where were you before?

The other question I have for people who say that Abbas has not legitimacy, that he should not have gone... so what? I mean, we have to liberate Palestine, right? And Abu Mazen is not the one to do it, so what? I kept asking all those people, so what do you suggest? You're against him going, fine. So what are you suggesting? The only thing they came back with, weakly, was BDS. BDS is a tool, not a strategy, it's not going to liberate Palestine. It's a tool. OK, let's say BDS succeeds, Israel is brought down to its knees by this tactic. So what? Who is going to pick up the pieces? There is no agency. Who is going to decide if it is a two-state solution, a one state, who is going to negotiate? That's the real problem.

The only agency that has that mandate, legitimacy, and is really representative is the Palestine National Council (PNC). I have no idea where that initiative is going. I understand in a way why they are not talking about it because it's very delicate and they are doing it quietly. I mention this but I am not writing about it, because it's not my issue, it's a Palestinian issue. But the point is that without Palestinian leadership and without an agency, we're stuck. I feel that we've gone as far as we can go.

We've brought this to governments, we've raised public awareness, we've had campaigns, we've done this for decades, we've made this collectively, one of two or three really global issues. But without Palestinians we can only take it so far. This is their moment. If there is no PNC and the PA is either going to collapse or be collaborationist, then what? I am trying to challenge a little bit my Palestinian counterparts. Where are you guys?

To tell me "BDS" is not the answer, that's a tool. In some ways, the Palestinians that we work with owe us a certain strategy. Even if they don't want to get into the details of this PNC thing, they should say something is cooking. Because what's going to happen is that people will get fed up, depressed, and move on to other issues. There are many issues around the world.

One word embodies that: colonialism. For the Palestinians it is definitely settler colonialism. There is no question, it's obvious. People coming in from Russia, saying it's my country. Okay. For the Jewish point of view it is no settler colonialism. There is a genuine feeling that there is a tie to this country, they speak Hebrew - in other words, the Jews are not strangers.

You can agree to disagree or whatever but the problem is that as the colonial discourse gets stronger and stronger in the Palestinian left, there really is going to be a deligimitisation of anything Israeli. It's important because our conception with the left in Israel has always been that whatever the solution was, it had to be inclusive, like in South Africa. Now, there is a retreat from that. In other words, the alternative to the South African model is the Algerian one.

Once you liberate Palestine you guys go back to to where you came from - you're out of here. That is why I don't think it is settler colonialism. There is no mother country. It isn't like France where you could go back to France. Where are the Israelis going to go back to, especially now with all those new generations? It's not being articulated, nobody is saying it. It's being articulated under the rubric of normalisations.

The Palestinian Left is pulling back from working with groups like ours, even the anti-Zionists like ourselves. You see it, for example, in the global march to Jerusalem. It's always phrased as "this is a Palestinian and international struggle". Where are we? Even non-Zionist? Where are we? The answer that I got from a few people was "we put you with internationals". Which is wow, that means something.

My problem is that I cannot obviously be part of a struggle which is not inclusive. It deserves to be addressed in-house, in the movement, not in public. I was forced to bring it up in the global march to Jerusalem. I was pressed to endorse the march publicly but they said not as the head of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions because we can't use the word Israeli. You have to endorse the march as the head of the committee against house demolitions. I said no and that set up a whole discussion. An organiser of the march wrote that this whole issue of inclusivity was a western preoccupation.

We are at a very crucial stage here where first of all the Palestinians have to take over and second of all, there has to be an end goal. If in fact the left is starting to say "it's colonialism" and we are not working with you guys anymore, this has tremendous implications.

Frank Barat is a Human Rights activist based in London. He is the coordinator of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine. He has edited two books; Gaza in Crisis with Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappe, and Corporate Complicity in Israel's Occupation with Asa Winstanley. He has also participated in the book Is There a Court for Gaza? with Daniel Machover.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/2012428124445821996.html

Israeli Raid in Jerusalem Houses to Issue Demolition Orders

nospam@example.com (nakba) — Sat, 05 May 2012 18:23:36 +0000

At dawn on Tuesday, 1st May, Israeli armed forces and police – accompanied by staff from the Jerusalem municipality – raided the al-Bustan neighborhood in Silwan village, south of al-Aqsa Mosque. They broke into several houses and issued the residents demolition orders from the Israeli courts.

Head of the Committee for the Defence of Silwan, Fakhri Abu Diab, said on "Facebook" that Israeli forces imposed a cordon around the area and that the municipality staff raided the houses in order to take measurements and interrogate the families.

Abu Diab said that the municipality's staff and the Israeli forces are still at the area, raiding Palestinian houses and stores. Some of the properties that were raided belong to Jabriel al-Tawel, Hesham Ayyed Qara'in, al-Mukhtar Ayed Hamdan Ayed, Fayez, Nader Abu Diab among others.

The village's citizens described the Israeli raid as a brutal attack – especially since women and children were in the houses. Such attacks create tension and fear amid the citizens, particularly children.

A number of Palestinian youths threw stones and empty bottles towards the Israeli soldiers forcing them to withdraw from the area, whilst the Israeli forces threw tear gas and sound bombs towards the Palestinians.

Israeli Authorities had previously decided to demolish all 80 houses in the neighborhood in order Judaize the area by replacing them with Israeli projects that serve the myth of the temple.

Source: Palestine News Network

Co-op boycotts exports from Israel's West Bank settlements

nospam@example.com (nakba) — Sat, 05 May 2012 18:22:52 +0000

The Co-operative Group has become the first major European supermarket group to end trade with companies that export produce from illegal Israeli settlements.

The UK's fifth biggest food retailer and its largest mutual business, the Co-op took the step as an extension of its existing policy which had been not to source produce from illegal settlements that have been built onPalestinian territories in the West bank.

Now the retail and insurance giant has taken it one step further by "no longer engaging with any supplier of produce known to be sourcing from the Israeli settlements".

The decision will hit four companies and contracts worth some £350,000. But the Co-op stresses this is not an Israeli boycott and that its contracts will go to other companies inside Israel that can guarantee they don't export from illegal settlements.

Welcoming the move, Palestinian human rights campaigners said it was the first time a supermarket anywhere in the west had taken such a position.

The Co-op's decision will immediately affect four suppliers, Agrexco, Arava Export Growers, Adafresh and Mehadrin, Israel's largest agricultural export company. Other companies may be affected by the policy.

Hilary Smith, Co-op member and Boycott Israel Network (BIN) agricultural trade campaign co-ordinator, said the Co-op "has taken the lead internationally in this historic decision to hold corporations to account for complicity in Israel's violations of Palestinian human rights We strongly urge other retailers to take similar action."

A spokesperson for the Palestinian Union of Agricultural Work Committees, which works to improve the conditions of Palestinian agricultural communities, said: "Israeli agricultural export companies like Mehadrin profit from and are directly involved in the ongoing colonisation of occupied Palestinian land and theft of our water. Trade with such companies constitutes a major form of support for Israel's apartheid regime over the Palestinian people, so we warmly welcome this principled decision by the Co-operative. The movement for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law is proving to be a truly effective form of action in support of Palestinian rights."

Boycott campaigns against Israel are routinely denounced by Israeli officials as part of a drive to "delegitimise" the Jewish state. A law, passed last July, allows those that call for economic, cultural or academic boycotts against Israel, its institutions or areas under its control to be sued.

Source: Guardian

Qusra looses more land to ever expanding settlements

nospam@example.com (nakba) — Sat, 05 May 2012 18:22:10 +0000

Sunday, April 29, a group of settlers bulldozed agricultural lands belonging to the village of Qusra, in Nablus district. In the morning hours, the settlers went to the piece of land, which is even located far from the settlements surrounding the village but had been targeted before by the settlers. Many times, the area was a location of clashes between the people from Qusra that were out there to protect their lands against the settlers’ usurpation.

Qusra is since years under heavy attack of the settlers and has paid a high price for its steadfast resistance.
The village is home to some 4400 people and covers a total area of 9878 dunum. Majdulim settlement, inhabited by 152 colonists, has been established on an area of 170.6 dunums of Palestinian lands.
The settlers from the nearby settlements have repeatedly harassed the villagers on their land and tried to take over fields of the village. Not even a year ago, on September 23 2011, Isam Kamal Abed Badran Oudah was killed while defending his land from the settlers.

Isam Kamel Abed Badran Odeh, a 34 year old father of seven, was killed by Israeli soldiers in the ongoing conflict between the Israeli settlers of Esh Kadesh outpost and the village. That day, settlers had invaded the village lands and were uprooting trees there when the people from Qusra came out to the fields to protect their land. The Israeli occupation forces protected the settlers and shot tear gas, rubber bullets and life ammunition at the people. Many were injured and Isam Oudah was shot in the neck with a life bullet.

To worsen the situation, Qusra is as well targeted with home demolitions. Only 776 dunum are built up area with no possibility of further expansion as the remaining lands are classified as area C (under complete Israeli administrative control) and Israel is not giving out any building permits. Villagers have still continued to build new houses for their children on their own lands. As a result, Israel has handed out demolition order for more than 15 structures that are now under threat. The very fact that Israel as an occupying power decides whether Palestinians can build or not on their own lands and demolishes structures without military necessity is a clear violation of international law. It is another mechanism to force people from their lands through disallowing them the right to a home.

Source: Stop the Wall

Palestinians call on UN to stop Israeli settlement legalization

nospam@example.com (nakba) — Sat, 05 May 2012 18:20:29 +0000

Israel’s decision to legalize three West Bank settlements receives wide condemnation from EU, UN, and U.S.

The Palestinian UN observer Riyad Mansour denounced on Wednesday Israel's legalization of three unsanctioned West Bank settler outposts as an illegal attempt to entrench "its massive network of illegal settlements."

The Palestinian condemnation is only the last in a wave of criticism Israel received after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that his government would seek to legalize the outposts’ status.

Mansour called on the UN Security Council "to act immediately to address these continuing illegal, grave actions by Israel."

He said in a letter to the council that the intensified construction of Israeli settlement activities in occupied Palestinian territory "is glaring proof" of Israel's "unlawful, expansionist aims."

Earlier on Wednesday, Catherine Ashton, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security condemned the move as well, saying that she was “extremely concerned.”Ashton called on Israel to reverse its decision.

“Settlements are illegal under international law, an obstacle to peace and threaten the viability of a two-state solution,” She said in her statement.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday that he was "deeply troubled" by Israel's decision to grant legal status to three settlement outposts in the West Bank, describing the activity as illegal under international law.

Referring to three outposts - Bruchin, Sansana and Rechalim, Ban's office said in a statement that the "Secretary-General is deeply troubled by the decision of the Government of Israel to formally approve three outposts in the West Bank."

"The Secretary-General reiterates that all settlement activity is illegal under international law. It runs contrary to Israel's obligations under the Road Map and repeated Quartet calls for the parties to refrain from provocations," it said.

The United States also said it was "concerned by the reports" of Israel's decision. "We don't think this is helpful to the [peace] process, and we don't accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

Israeli officials played down the decision taken by a ministerial committee late on Monday and rejected accusations that the government had effectively created the first new Jewish settlements for more than 20 years.

The United Nations views all Jewish settlements in the West Bank as illegal. However, Israel distinguishes between settlements it has approved and the outposts that were never granted official authorization.

Some 350 settlers live in Bruchin and 240 in Rechelim, both in the northern part of the West Bank, while Sansana, with a population of 240, lies further to the south.

Earlier this month, the Quartet - the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States - criticized Israeli settlement building and called on donors to meet aid pledges to the Palestinians as they sought to revive stalled peace talks.

The cool Mrs Theresa May is acting like a hothead

nospam@example.com (nakba) — Sat, 05 May 2012 18:18:52 +0000

New Labour’s first rule of government was a point blank refusal to be outflanked from the Right when it came to law and order.

Every one of the great principles which for centuries have underpinned the criminal justice system in Britain came under attack: trial by jury, habeas corpus, free speech, even the separation of powers between executive and judiciary.

Tony Blair, who had trained as a barrister, took the view that ancient liberties like a fair trial and the presumption of innocence belonged were Dickensian. He licensed a series of home secretaries, from David Blunkett to John Reid, to wage war on the judges, and undermined the judiciary’s standing and independence.

It is greatly to the credit of Theresa May that when the Conservatives were in opposition she resisted this calculated populism and stood up for traditional liberties. Almost her first act in office was to put an end to ID cards, and early on she displayed a level-headed and unexcitable statesmanship of a kind that the Home Office had not experienced for many years.

For some reason, Mrs May has “immatured” in power. The first sign that something was going wrong was when the Supreme Court sensibly ruled that sex offenders would be given the right to appeal against having to register with the police. Mrs May expressed outrage, announcing that she was “appalled’ by the ruling and would set the bar for appeals as high as she could.

The came her hysterical call for the abolition of the Human Rights Act at last autumn’s Conservative Party conference, in the course of which she alerted her audience to the case of an illegal immigrant “who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had a pet cat”.

Embarrassingly for Mrs May, further investigation showed that her telling of the cat story was exaggerated. It turned out that the immigrant she cited, a Bolivian man named Camilo Soria Avila, did indeed own a cat. But his feline companion was only one factor taken into account by the immigration tribunal that allowed him to stay in this country on human rights grounds.

A second example of Mrs May’s recklessness with the facts was more serious. It concerns Sheikh Raed Salah, a distinguished Palestinian politician, who was invited to address a meeting in the House of Commons. Mrs May banned the sheikh on the grounds that he had supported terrorism, had once written an anti-Semitic poem, and constituted a grave threat to public order. But, to the Home Secretary’s consternation, he was able to enter Britain unhindered last June. Sheikh Salah was imprisoned, and later detained under close house arrest. Earlier this month Mr Justice Ockelton of the Upper Immigration Tribunal found that the Home Secretary had been ''under a misapprehension as to the facts’’, that the sheikh did not hold the views she attributed to him, and that he represented no threat of any kind.

More devastating, it now emerges that Mrs May made her decision on the basis of information provided by a single source, the Community Security Trust, an organisation that combats anti-Semitism in Britain. She appears to have made no serious attempt to check its allegations, and reached her decision in a matter of minutes.

There are no two ways about it. Mr Justice Ockelton’s ruling, which received very little publicity, was humiliating for Mrs May, and damaging to Britain. It is important that we should be seen as a disinterested broker in the Middle Eastern peace process. To jail a distinguished visiting Palestinian on the basis of such limited testimony looks like evidence of bias.

And now along comes the Abu Qatada affair, which threatens to pin down Mrs May as a serial bungler. To her credit she has resisted the temptation to deport Qatada immediately. When the appalling Conservative MP Charles Walker urged her in the Commons to press on without delay ''in getting this scumbag and his murderous mates on a plane and out of this country’’ the Home Secretary was dismissive. She very correctly insisted that, whatever her personal inclinations, she would respect the rule of law.

Nor should she be blamed over the muddle over the date set for Qatada’s appeal. Mrs May has gallantly volunteered to shoulder the blame, but it is surely not her job to engage in such recondite technical questions as the difference between a legal month and an actual one. Her legal advisers should accept responsibility, if a mistake has been made, something that is not yet certain.

Mrs May has not, however, displayed the cool, calm deliberation one would expect from a Home Secretary properly conscious of the gravity of her office. Lawyers for Qatada have asserted that he is liable to be tortured or, at the very least, convicted on the basis of evidence gathered under torture. This claim may be wrong, but it is a serious one. It was therefore disgraceful of Mrs May to exploit the prospect of Qatada’s imminent departure to his native Jordan as some kind of propaganda coup.

There is a common calculation underlying the Home Secretary’s handling of Abu Qatada, Sheikh Salah and the cat at last year’s Tory conference. In each case Mrs May appears to have been extremely poorly briefed. She has acted in haste, without making sure of the facts, or even the lawful basis for her action.

It may be she has been calculating that none of this matters. Mrs May is a renowned moderniser who once informed Conservative conference that the Tories must lose their image as the ''nasty’’ party. This modernising mission seems, in Mrs May’s mind, to involve an attack on the criminal justice system. Certainly New Labour gloried in its wars with the judiciary. It may have lost the fight in the courts, but it always won the battle of public opinion.

Yesterday, the newspaper proprietor Rupert Murdoch arrived in Britain in preparation for next week’s Leveson hearing. For more than two decades his newspapers were openly hostile to the rule of law. They did not merely break the law themselves, but collaborated with Labour and Tory ministers in vicious battles against the judiciary, at one point threatening a ''name and shame’’ campaign against ''liberal judges’’ and other vulnerable minorities.

Sometimes we may not like the decisions judges make, or the people they protect, but it is nevertheless important to recall the rule of law is at the heart of everything we are and do. It protects property, contract, freedom. Without it democracy is impossible. Every Home Secretary faces a choice between courting popularity and doing the right thing. Mrs May needs to return to the lucid rectitude of her early days in office.

A new settlement in Beit Hanina

nospam@example.com (nakba) — Sat, 05 May 2012 18:17:56 +0000

“There’s an Eviction in Beit Hanina” said a text message on my phone last Wednesday (18/4/12). I knew it could happen, already since February last year, when the Palestinians lost the court case, but I didn’t know when and whether the police would assist the settlers with evicting the Palestinian families from their homes. Later in the day, when I got to the place, the locksmith was putting a new lock on the door. Few Palestinians, women and children, were talking to the Jerusalem policemen watching their home being taken for the benefit of the Israeli settlers.

The story of the property begins before the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. According to the settlers, a parcel of some 10 dunams in the area of Beit Hanina, north of Jerusalem, was bought by Jews from the original owners. By the end of the 1948 war, the land was under the control of the Jordanians. Following the 1967 war, the land was in the hands of Israel, and was annexed to Israel as part of the extended municipal borders of Jerusalem.

The Palestinian Natsheh family built the two homes that were evicted on Wednesday some 15 years ago. The land, according to their claim, was long owned by their family. They told me that their grandfather had a small stone factory on the land already before 1967.

Eventually the Jerusalem local court ruled that the Palestinian family must evict the houses and accepted the settlers’ claim.

Despite being perceived as merely a matter of property rights, this is first and foremost a political matter. The establishment of a new settlement at the heart of a Palestinian neighborhood has wide implications. Locally, this settlement creates yet another place of friction between radical settlers and Palestinians, this time in the quiet neighborhood of Beit Hanina. In addition, this new settlement is part of an effort by the settlers to prevent a future agreement between Israel and the Palestinians based on two states, and on two capitals in Jerusalem. According to such an agreement, the Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem will be part of the Palestinian capital, and the Jewish neighborhoods will be part of Israeli capital. If the settlers succeed in bringing significant number of Jews into the Palestinian neighborhoods, such an agreement will be much harder to implement.

And finally, the legal basis for the settlers’ entrance to the houses is threatening a basic claim of Israel: We claim that Palestinians who lost their properties during the 1948 war cannot return to them because it will destroy the legitimate right of the Jews for self determination in an independent state. However, this case is actually accepting the right of Jews to return to their properties. If that is the case, the Palestinians will rightly claim, that they should have their right to return to their properties. This way, the settlers may lead Israel to its own destruction.

Source: Settlement Watch East Jerusalem

Court Orders Removal Of Settlers From Hebron Home

nospam@example.com (nakba) — Sat, 05 May 2012 18:16:54 +0000

The settlers occupied the property several years ago, and used it as an outpost and as a base for repeated attacks and violations against homes and residents in the area.

The Hebron Reconstruction Committee, and the owners of the property, went through an extended legal battle in Israeli courts, including the Appeals Court, the Military Appeals Court, and finally the Israeli District Court.

The home in question belongs to members of Al-Bakri family; the settlers occupied the property under false claims of ownership and fabricated documents.

The Israeli court gave the settlers until May, 15, 2012, to leave the Palestinian property so that the owners can move back in.

The Committee stated that extremist Israeli settlers are ongoing with their violations and attacks against the indigenous Palestinian population of the city, adding that it demanded the Israeli court to order the army to end these violations.

Israeli settlers in the occupied territories usually build their outposts on the hilltops and by stealing Palestinian farmlands and orchards, but similar to occupied East Jerusalem, settlers in Hebron are not only living in settlements built by Israel around Hebron, and on its hill, but also settle in the heart of the Old City an issue that leads to constants clashes between them and the local residents.

The settlers are responsible for numerous attacks against the Palestinians, their property and their lands; these attacks include harassing and attacking school children, assaults, including armed assaults against the residents in their homes and lands, and by illegally occupying Palestinian homes in sensitive areas in the city such as Tal Romeida and Ash-Shuhada Street.

Israel closed Ash-Shuhada Street, allowing only settlers to use it, since the Ibarahimi Massacre was carried out by Baroch Goldstein in 1994, when he opened fire at Muslim worshipers in the mosque; more than 100 Palestinians were killed in the attack and the resulting clashes with the soldiers and the settlers, hundreds of residents were injured, while some injuries lead to permanent disabilities.

There are more than 200.000 Palestinians live in Hebron city, subject to constant attacks and harassment by Israeli soldiers and settlers.

500 Israeli settlers live in and around the Old City of Hebron; approximately %65 of the total Hebron district area have been illegally taken over for the benefit of settlement construction, expansion, military camps, settler outposts, and settler bypass roads.

Source: International Middle East Media Center

Egypt to boycott 'pro-Israel' Adidas kit manufacturer

nospam@example.com (nakba) — Sat, 05 May 2012 18:16:02 +0000

Egypt Football Association (EFA) president Anwar Saleh has confirmed that Egypt will boycott the Adidas sportswear company to comply with the decision of the Arab Youth and Sports Ministers.

"We will boycott the company whatever the consequences. It is not my call, this is a ministerial decision and I cannot ignore it," Saleh was quoted as saying on Ahram Sport.

Earlier this month, Saudi Prince Nawaf Bin Faisal, chairman of the Arab Council of Youth and Sports Ministers, announced during the council’s meeting in Jeddah that "all companies that have sponsored the marathon in Jerusalem, including Adidas, will be boycotted."

Sports apparel manufacturer Adidas was the only non-Israeli sponsor of the race that the sports council consider to be an attempt by "Israel to mislead public opinion into believing that Jerusalem is its capital which is a violation of all UN resolutions."

EFA marketing manager Amr Wahbi has warned of heavy losses that will harm the national team and the EFA if the decision is enforced.

"We will see about 1.7 million euros in losses per year because of this decision. We won't be able to find another sponsor at such a short notice and also because of the current circumstances in Egypt," he said.

Football activities in Egypt have been suspended since the Port Said disaster on 1 February that left 73 dead and hundreds of injured.

The Pharaohs have held training camps in Qatar and the UAE to warm up ahead of the 2013 African Cup of Nations and 2014 World Cup qualifiers.

Source: Ahram Online

Jerusalem Mufti calls for end to 'Israeli terrorism'

nospam@example.com (nakba) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:02:15 +0000

The Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Muhammad Hussein, has drawn attention to Israel's continued violation of freedom of worship in Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories.

Sheikh Hussein asserted that the Israeli government's recent announcement that it would be closing the Ibrahimi Mosque to Muslim worshippers for two days next month because of the upcoming Jewish holidays, is a gross encroachment on religious sanctuaries and the right of Muslims to worship.

The announcement coincides with the attacks against Palestinians in Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by the Israeli government and its illegal settlers. This is being viewed by many as a clear indication of the collaboration between the official Israeli authorities and the illegal settlers in violating the rights of Palestinians and their sanctuaries.

In a statement issued on Tuesday 13th March, the Chairman of the Supreme Legal Advisory Council stressed the necessity of putting a stop to "organised Israeli terrorism". He rejected the justifications put forward by the government in explanation for policies he described as "arrogant, and contravene the values of both divine legislature and international law, as well as international agreements which protect freedom of access to places of worship."

Source: Middle East Monitor

Self-defense or provocation: Israel's history of breaking ceasefires

nospam@example.com (nakba) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:01:08 +0000

Since Israel's creation in 1948, Israeli political and military leaders have demonstrated a pattern of repeatedly violating ceasefires with their enemies in order to gain military advantage, for territorial aggrandizement, or to provoke their opponents into carrying out acts of violence that Israel can then exploit politically and/or use to justify military operations already planned.

The following fact sheet provides a brief overview of some of the most high profile and consequential ceasefire violations committed by the Israeli military over the past six decades.

2012 - On March 9, Israel violates an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire and assassinates the head of the Gaza-based Popular Resistance Committees, sparking another round of violence in which at least two dozen Palestinians are killed, including at least four civilians, and scores more wounded. As usual, Israel claims it is acting in self-defense, against an imminent attack being planned by the PRC, while providing no evidence to substantiate the allegation.

Following the assassination, Israeli journalist Zvi Bar'el writes in the Haaretz newspaper:

"It is hard to understand what basis there is for the assertion that Israel is not striving to escalate the situation. One could assume that an armed response by the Popular Resistance Committees or Islamic Jihad to Israel's targeted assassination was taken into account. But did anyone weigh the possibility that the violent reaction could lead to a greater number of Israeli casualties than any terrorist attack that Zuhair al-Qaisi, the secretary-general of the Popular Resistance Committees, could have carried out?

"In the absence of a clear answer to that question, one may assume that those who decided to assassinate al-Qaisi once again relied on the 'measured response' strategy, in which an Israeli strike draws a reaction, which draws an Israeli counter-reaction."

Just over two months prior, on the third anniversary of Operation Cast Lead, Israeli army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz tells Israel's Army Radio that Israel will need to attack Gaza again soon to restore its power of "deterrence," and that the assault must be "swift and painful," concluding, "We will act when the conditions are right."

2011 - On October 29, Israel breaks a truce that has maintained calm for two months, killing five Islamic Jihad members in Gaza, including a senior commander. The following day, Egypt brokers another truce that Israel proceeds to immediately violate, killing another four IJ members. In the violence, a total of nine Palestinians and one Israeli are killed.

2008 - In November, Israel violates a ceasefire with Hamas and other Gaza-based militant groups that has been in place since June, launching an operation that kills six Hamas members. Militant groups respond by launching rockets into southern Israel, which Israel shortly thereafter uses to justify Operation Cast Lead, its devastating military assault on Gaza beginning on December 27. Over the next three weeks, the Israeli military kills approximately 1400 Palestinians, most of them civilians, including more than 300 children. A UN Human Rights Council Fact Finding Mission led by South African jurist Richard Goldstone subsequently concludes that both Israel and Hamas had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during the fighting, a judgment shared by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

2002 - On July 23, hours before a widely reported ceasefire declared by Hamas and other Palestinian groups is scheduled to come into effect, Israel bombs an apartment building in the middle of the night in the densely populated Gaza Strip in order to assassinate Hamas leader Salah Shehada. Fourteen civilians, including nine children, are also killed in the attack, and 50 others wounded, leading to a scuttling of the ceasefire and a continuation of violence.

2002 - On January 14, Israel assassinates Raed Karmi, a militant leader in the Fatah party, following a ceasefire agreed to by all Palestinian militant groups the previous month, leading to its cancellation. Later in January, the first suicide bombing by the Fatah linked Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade takes place.

2001 - On November 23, Israel assassinates senior Hamas militant, Mahmoud Abu Hanoud. At the time, Hamas was adhering to an agreement made with PLO head Yasser Arafat not to attack targets inside of Israel. Following the killing, respected Israeli military correspondent of the right-leaning Yediot Ahronot newspaper, Alex Fishman, writes in a front-page story: "We again find ourselves preparing with dread for a new mass terrorist attack within the Green Line [Israel's pre-1967 border]... Whoever gave a green light to this act of liquidation knew full well that he is thereby shattering in one blow the gentleman's agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority; under that agreement, Hamas was to avoid in the near future suicide bombings inside the Green Line..." A week later, Hamas responds with bombings in Jerusalem and Haifa.

2001 - On July 25, as Israeli and Palestinian Authority security officials meet to shore up a six-week-old ceasefire, Israel assassinates a senior Hamas member in Nablus. Nine days later, Hamas responds with a suicide bombing in a Jerusalem pizzeria.

1988 - In April, Israel assassinates senior PLO leader Khalil al-Wazir in Tunisia, even as the Reagan administration is trying to organize an international conference to broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The US State Department condemns the murder as an "act of political assassination." In ensuing protests in the occupied territories, a further seven Palestinians are gunned down by Israeli forces.

1982 - Following Israel's invasion of Lebanon in June, and after PLO fighters depart Beirut under the terms of a US-brokered ceasefire, Israel violates the terms of the agreement and moves its armed forces into the western part of the city, where the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila are located. Shortly thereafter, Israeli soldiers surround the camps and send in their local Christian Phalangist allies - even though the long and bloody history between Palestinians and Phalangists in Lebanon is well known to the Israelis, and despite the fact that the Phalangists' leader, Bashir Gemayel, has just been assassinated and Palestinians are rumored (incorrectly) to be responsible. Over the next three days, between 800 and 3500 Palestinian refugees, mostly women and children left behind by the PLO fighters, are butchered by the Phalangists as Israeli soldiers look on. In the wake of the massacre, an Israeli commission of inquiry, the Kahan Commission, deems that Israeli Defense Minister (and future Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon bears "personal responsibility" for the slaughter.

1981-2 - Under Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel repeatedly violates a nine-month-old UN-brokered ceasefire with the PLO in Lebanon in an effort to provoke a response that will justify a large-scale invasion of the country that Sharon has been long planning. When PLO restraint fails to provide Sharon with an adequate pretext, he uses the attempted assassination of Israel's ambassador to England to justify a massive invasion aimed at destroying the PLO - despite the fact that Israeli intelligence officials believe the PLO has nothing to do with the assassination attempt. In the ensuing invasion, more than 17,000 Lebanese are killed.

1973 - Following a ceasefire agreement arranged by the US and the Soviet Union to end the Yom Kippur War, Israel violates the agreement with a "green light" from US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. According to declassified US documents, Kissinger tells the Israelis they can take a "slightly longer" time to adhere to the truce. As a result, Israel launches an attack and surrounds the Egyptian Third Army, causing a major diplomatic crisis between the US and Soviets that pushes the two superpowers to the brink of nuclear war, with the Soviets threatening to intervene to save their Egyptian allies and the US issuing a Defcon III nuclear alert.

1967 - Israel violates the 1949 Armistice Agreement, launching a surprise attack against Egypt and Syria. Despite claims Israel is acting in self-defense against an impending attack from Egypt, Israeli leaders are well aware that Egypt poses no serious threat. Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of the General Staff of the Israeli army during the war, says in a 1968 interview that "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." And former Prime Minister Menachem Begin later admits that "Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

1956 - Colluding with Britain and France, Israel violates the 1949 Armistice Agreement by invading Egypt and occupying the Sinai Peninsula. Israel only agrees to withdraw following pressure from US President Dwight Eisenhower.

1949 - Immediately after the UN-brokered Armistice Agreement between Israel and its neighbors goes into effect, the armed forces of the newly-created Israeli state begin violating the truce with encroachments into designated demilitarized zones and military attacks that claim numerous civilian casualties.

source:

Organizations Sign Document to Condemn Occupation

nospam@example.com (nakba) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:59:41 +0000

On Thursday March 15, at a UN Human Rights Council conference, 300 international organizations signed during, a call for Israel to lift the restrictions on the Palestinians' movement in the West Bank.

The conference that was held on Wednesday March 14 in Geneva presented information on the Israeli violations in the Palestinian occupied territories. The Euro-Mediterranean Observatory for Human Rights was the main spokesman about these violations.

The regional director for the Observatory, professor Amani al-Sinwar, spoke of the gravest Israeli contraventions of human rights that were committed against Palestinians. Special focus was on the recent processes on Gaza Strip, and what Palestinians suffer as a result of the unjustified Israeli restrictions that aim to control Palestinians lives.

She also talked about the Palestinians who Israel has banned from travelling in the West Bank, of which there is around 4,000 cases from the past year.

She submitted her recommendations for the Human Rights Council and other international organisations, in order to put pressure on Israel to remove the imposed restrictions on the Palestinians' movement.

In response, 300 non-government organisations adopted the recommendations. The report, as a document issued by the Human Rights Council, is to be sent for consideration to the General Assembly of the UN and to its Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in order to put the case of the Palestinians who were banned from travelling on the negotiation table, and to find legal solution for it.

The organisations considered the Israeli violations in banning Palestinians from travelling, targeting academics and prisoners, and evacuating Jerusalem of Arabs, which contravene international law and should be recognised and condemned.

Source: Palestine News Network

Protect Jerusalem - Friday March 30th, 5pm, Israeli Embassy

nospam@example.com (nakba) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:54:55 +0000

Jerusalem is a pivotal city to all three monotheistic faiths. Shared worship in the city has been an essential part of its history and this plurality is facing increasing threats as Israeli policies on the ground continue to undermine all non-Jewish claims to the city.

· Archeological digs have shown complete disregard for any Muslim or Christian legacies in the city. For the past three years, Israel has been digging in the Arab Silwan area of Jerusalem attempting to prove historic rights to this area (‘The city of David), however any evidence of Palestinian claims found in the digs are believed to have been covered up or disregarded.

· The sacred Masjid al-Aqsa has faced numerous threats from extreme right wing Israelis who have attempted to storm the compound. These extremists have been escorted onto the sacred area by Israeli police and the result has seen clashes which have left many Palestinians wounded. Israel continues to impose restrictions on Palestinians wishing to pray within the holy sites.

· Palestinian residents of Jerusalem continue to face the constant threat of having their homes demolished, and some have faced the nightmare of illegal Israeli settlers moving in to their homes. The result is abject misery for all the adults and children of the household.

“Under Israeli occupation in the last few decades, the Muslim and Christian Palestinian heritage in the Holy City of Jerusalem has been undermined and threatened. Israel has deliberately orchestrated changes to the facts on the ground to ensure that there is Jewish majority in the city at the expense of Muslim and Christian citizens. Ancient heritage sites are being wiped out and Palestinians are helpless against the assaults of local police and army personnel. They can no longer protect or guard historic sites and documents, and it is up to us to ensure that their plight is brought to the world’s attention,” stated Ismail Patel, Chair of Friends of Al-Aqsa.

The situation in Jerusalem cannot be ignored. Israel is physically changing the city beyond recognition leading to social and economical isolation from the rest of the West Bank. Palestinians who live outside of Jerusalem have almost no access to their city.

TAKE ACTION: Join the demonstration on March 30th and show your solidarity with the people of Jerusalem, and the Palestinian heritage being wiped away from the Holy City.

However you wear your Kufiyeh, Wear it with Pride.

Take a photo and Post it with your Area to show solidarity at Global Wear a Kufiyeh Day Facebook

Special offer for Kufiyeh Day: Buy a Made in Palestine Kufiyeh and get aSyrian Made Kufiyeh for only £3.

(Type 'MIPK' in the discount code section for the offer to apply)

Israel and US are seen as more threatening than Iran

nospam@example.com (nakba) — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 08:29:32 +0000

The first of its kind - a poll conducted in 12 Arab countries, representing 84 per cent of the population of the Arab world, in an attempt to gauge the region's political mood - has arrived at some interesting results.
Organised by the Arab Centre for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS), face-to-face interviews by Arab surveyors with 16,731 individuals in the first half of 2011 revealed majority support for the goals of the Arab revolutions and notably, for a democratic system of government.
The countries surveyed included Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Mauritania, with the help of local institutions and research centres.

While people seem generally split on the question of separation of state and religion, a majority supports the non-interference of religious authorities in politics.
And by a 15-1 ratio, Israel and the US are seen as more threatening than Iran. However, this ratio is lower among those living in proximity to Iran.
Opinions differ on certain issues from country to country and region to region, but there's clearly a trans-national, trans-border public consensus when it comes to questions of identity and national priorities.

The data generated by the poll, the largest conducted so far in the region, is a treasure trove for those looking to better understand the political environment in the Arab world.

Main conclusions
Awaiting the publication of the report in English, here are the poll's main conclusions:
71 per cent say they don't distinguish between religious and non-religious people in their economic and social relations.A high 83 per cent believe corruption is widespread in their countries.Only 19 per cent see their states implement the law equally among its citizens.A high 84 per cent believe the Palestinian question is the cause of all Arabs and not the Palestinians only.Moreover, a majority of Arabs support the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, and believe revolution came about because of corruption, dictatorship and lack of justice and equality. A majority also believe they belong to one Arab nation.
Nuances and caveats
The majority doesn't approach democracy as merely a Western notion. Rather, it provides a clear definition of a democratic system that includes political plurality, freedom of expression, rule of law, et cetera.
When it comes to specifics, a rather slim majority of 57 per cent supports the rule of a political party they disagree with.
While people are generally supportive of democracy, a minority doesn't truly understand or accept its main tenets.
A relatively high 36 per cent wouldn't support those they disagree with in their political platform to take power, a percentage that doesn't bode well for democracy.
This shows that while there is an intention to move towards pluralism among most people, there is resistance to pluralism and diversity among a certain minority.
A high majority in Egypt and Tunisia are optimistic that their countries will fare better in three years than during the rule of Mubarak and Ben Ali.
It remains to be seen to what degree the opinions expressed in the poll are a reflection of excitement about the revolutions, and how far people are ready to go to establish democratic systems.
But that's precisely why an annual sequel to this poll, as promised by ACRPS, is indispensable for better understanding of Arab thinking beyond mood swings and abrupt changes.
Polls have originally been the tools used to gauge consumerist tendencies, priorities in Western societies and business. They were developed into advanced tools to monitor the public's political mood, required for certain political confidence, societal openness and stability.
To what degree Arab respondents express their minds freely and without any fear remains to be seen. However, for the first time in decades, people seem more willing and able to share their political sentiments, thanks to the revolutions.
The substantial size of the poll certainly helps obtain better results. But it's not only quantitative.
The methodology used by ACPRS pollsters - a 40-minute face-to-face interview with each respondent - allows for more accurate results than the usual quick phone interviews.
The approach here contrasts sharply with Western-type polls in the Arab world that project Western, not Arab, priorities, and/or are centered around slogans and clichés.
This is not a poll that asks people whether they feel Muslim or Arab, or whether they support the women's veil or democracy.
The poll, the first to be conducted after the Arab upheavals, shows a people in tune with the change that swept the Arab region.
But how does the poll square with the election results in various Arab nations where Islamists have made serious advances - such as Egypt, where conservative and ultra-conservative Islamist parties won 70 per cent of the vote?
The two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the polls discussed give a better and deeper explanation of the vote patterns and of the opinions of those who thus far have remained silent.

EU's Ashton criticises approval of 'illegal' settlement

nospam@example.com (nakba) — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 22:48:20 +0000

The European Union's Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton criticized on Thursday Israel's recent approval of new homes in the West Bank settlement of Shilo, adding that Israeli settlements were "illegal under international law."

On Tuesday, the Defense Ministry gave preliminary approval to a plan to build 600 new homes in Shiloh, a hardline settlement deep inside the West Bank. The move drew rebukes from the United Nations and Palestinians, and threatened to raise tensions with the United States as the prime minister prepares to head to the White House.

Referring to the decision on Thursday, a spokesperson for the EU's High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Ashton said the FM was "deeply concerned by the approval on 22 February by the Israeli Civil Administration of new construction in the settlements of Shvut Rachel and Shilo as well as the retrospective approval granted for housing units already built."

"Settlements are illegal under international law. In addition the Quartet Roadmap states that Israel should not only freeze all settlement activity, but also dismantle those settlements erected since March 2001," the statement said.

Ashton also referred to the possible impact the approval of new settlement homes could have on attempts to restart the stalled Mideast peace talks, saying that it was particularly important at this point that neither party in the Middle East peace process undertakes provocative actions which undermine the prospects for continuing the dialogue which was re-established in January."

"The High Representative calls on Israel to respect its obligations under the Roadmap and reverse this decision," the statement concluded.

While Israeli officials played down the decision, saying it was made by a low-level planning committee under the control of the Defense Ministry, the move drew a series of international condemnations.

The United Nations' Mideast envoy, Robert Serry, called the announcement "deplorable" and said it "moves us further away from the goal of a two-state solution."

Speaking to reporters, U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the U.S. policy on settlement activity is clear. "We don't believe it's in any way constructive to getting both sides back to the negotiating table," he said.
The Palestinians say there is no point negotiating while Israel continues to expand its settlements. After the low-level dialogue launched last month in Jordan failed to make any breakthroughs, Jordan blamed Israel Tuesday for the impasse, citing Israel's "unilateral policies."

One Israeli official said the project was only in the "embryonic" phase and would require "multiple stages of authorizations," including approval by top leaders, that would take years to complete.

Source: Haaretz