In order to understand the current dilemmas of Palestinian political leadership and the continuing statelessness of the Palestinians, it is helpful to examine how British policy influenced institutional development and power dynamics during the mandate era, the remnants of which are still clearly visible today. British policies toward the Jewish and Arab communities in Palestine during the British Mandate period greatly influenced the defeat of the Palestinians, and the emergence of the state of Israel in 1948. Although the British attempted to maintain an appearance of balance and neutrality in which they proclaimed, “that Arabs and Jews would live in harmony together,” and in which they publicly denied Zionist aims for statehood, their policy was far from even-handed between the two parties. While the British did adjust their policy according to events unfolding on the ground over time, and did sometimes display pragmatism and sympathy to Palestinian grievances, British policies largely favored Zionist goals and aims. This was particularly true of British policy regarding the creation of para-state mechanisms and institution building during the Mandate.
In fact, British policy from 1917 through 1939 greatly enabled the organization and establishment of Jewish para-state institutions. For purposes of this paper, I will focus primarily on the Jewish Agency (the Zionist Executive), which prepared the Jewish community for eventual statehood. I will compare and contrast this with British policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians, which actively prevented them from establishing a political institution of the same magnitude and power, and instead favored the centralization of Palestinian authority in political-religious structures, utilizing the old Ottoman framework for local governance that allowed for a minimal amount of autonomy over their own affairs. While this alone cannot sufficiently explain the inability of Palestinians to organize themselves effectively in the face of British and Zionist power, it undoubtedly placed them in a subordinate and much weaker position than the Jewish community in Mandate Palestine. This aspect of British policy presented challenges to the Palestinians as they struggled for statehood and self-determination that they were unable to overcome in the years leading up to 1948, and one could argue, that they are still struggling to overcome today.
To fully understand the implications of British policy regarding institution building in relation to the Palestinian and Jewish communities in Mandate Palestine, it is first necessary to examine the mandate system and the language written into the Mandate for Palestine itself. The mandate system emerged after World War I to temporarily allow world powers to administer Ottoman territories, with the understanding “that it would encourage the development of political, economic, and social institutions to the point that self-government would result and that the mandatory power would withdraw.” In The Iron Cage, Rashid Khalidi asserts that it can be argued the Mandate for Palestine was intentionally written by the British to exclude national self-determination for the Palestinians, which at the time constituted an overwhelming majority of the population. However, regardless of the intention, the language of the Mandate is quite telling. As Rashid Khalidi pointed out, the Palestinians are never mentioned by name as a people, nor is their right to self-determination specifically addressed and acknowledged in the text of the Mandate. Palestinians were merely referred to as ‘inhabitants,’ ‘non-Jewish communities’ and ‘other sections of the population.’ Yet, the language of the Mandate goes deeper than neglecting to acknowledge the Palestinians as a people. It specifically addresses responsibility for fostering the development of self-governing institutions solely for the Jewish national home. Article Two of the Mandate states:
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative, and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home… and the development of self-governing institutions.
What follows that section references “safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.” This contradictory and problematic addition attempts to acknowledge the rights of the Palestinians, but does not specifically address them as a people deserving of self-determination, nor does it declare any such responsibility for helping to secure the establishment of an Arab state in Palestine, or more importantly, Palestinian self-governing institutions. Yet the Mandate does specifically recognize a nascent Jewish governing body, and its commitment to cooperate with it in working towards the establishment of a Jewish national home.
To View the Full Study as PDF (112 KB)
Protection of Women from Violence in Times of Armed Conflict: Palestinian Women as a Case Study
Date posted: August 18, 2020
By Tamara Tamimi
Abstract
Violence against women in Palestine at the hands of Israeli occupation forces and settlers is part and parcel of the wider framework of violence against the Palestinian people. Violence by occupation forces takes many different forms, some are evident and clear such as targeted killing and injury, as well as imprisonment. Other forms of violence are less pronounced but equally important as they pertain to the forcible displacement of Palestinians; these include house demolitions, house evictions, revocation of residency, land and property confiscation and imposition of restrictions on the registration of newborns.
While this violence is targeted against the entirety of the Palestinian people, including women, children and the elderly, it has a disproportionate impact on women due to reinforcement of patriarchy, traditional gender roles and stereotypes, as well as the reproduction of the cycle of violence by the stronger social group against the weaker social group, and signifying diminishing acceptance and tolerance to diversity and difference.
Violence against the Palestinian people as a whole has persisted for over fifty years despite the multitude of instruments and mechanisms to protect from violence in times of armed conflict. This includes instruments within the framework of international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law, as well as the women, peace and security agenda. Notwithstanding the multitude of instruments and mechanisms, their effectiveness remains constricted by a large number of factors including the absence of enforcement mechanisms due to the alleged primacy of state sovereignty, provided that this does not contravene the economic and geopolitical interests of a few select states. Another important factor is that these instruments are not designed to appreciate the impact of protracted occupation, and are instead tailored to armed conflicts that do not give rise to protracted military occupation and that are time-bound even if they persist for a long period of time, such as the wars in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. This paper seeks to highlight forms of Israeli violence against the Palestinian people, describe their disproportionate impact on women, analyse why violence persists against women in times of armed conflict, and identify stakeholders and recommendations to increase protection of women from violence in times of armed conflict.
Israeli violations during the Coronavirus pandemic
Date posted: April 18, 2020
By MIFTAH
The following report illustrates Israeli violations during the Coronavirus pandemic sweeping the world. Since the beginning of the pandemic, Israeli occupation forces continued their violations against the Palestinian people in every part of Palestine and in Jerusalem in particular. They did not halt raids into cities, villages and camps, conducting arrests, confiscating land, closing institutions and targeting official Palestinian figures.
It is clear that the violations Israel perpetrated in Jerusalem stem from a permanent and systematic policy based on two focal points:
First: resistance and rejection of any show of Palestinian national sovereignty in occupied Jerusalem through every means possible, under the pretext of ”breaching Israeli sovereignty”. Israeli authorities also accuse Palestinians of violating the so-called “interim agreement” in reference to the Oslo Accords, which prohibits the PA from holding any activity in the city without an Israeli permit.
Second: the Israelization and Judaization of every aspect of life in Jerusalem through disrupting the demographic balance in order to impose a new reality on the ground.
Throughout the Coronavirus pandemic, Israel escalated these policies and the following measures taken against Jerusalemites.
Arrests:
During this period, arrests were focused on curtailing any efforts in Jerusalem aimed at protecting Palestinian residents from the dangers of the epidemic. Israel considers such efforts a violation of Israeli law, which culminated in the arrest of over 20 activists from various parts of Jerusalem. Some were put under house arrest and prohibited from contacting Palestinian officials in the city. Arrests included Palestinian Minister of Jerusalem Affairs, Fadi Hidmi and Jerusalem Governor Adnan Ghaith. These are two of the most prominent national Palestinian symbols in Jerusalem, which prompted Israel to use an iron fist with them, humiliating and mistreating them during their arrest. Hidmi, for example mistreated during his arrest and later said he had been violently assaulted at the detention facility. The two officials were arrested on charges of being responsible for aid distribution to needy Jerusalemite families.
According to the Wadi Helwa Information Center, throughout March until the date of this report (April 9) a total of 193 arrests were made by Israeli authorities, including four women and 33 minors. A total of 73 arrests were made in the Old City and inside and around the Aqsa Mosque Compound; 57 Palestinians were arrested in Essawiyeh, 35 in Silwan and several others in various parts of the city.
Furthermore, Israeli intelligence services summoned Jerusalem governor Adnan Ghaith, Aqsa Mosque Director Sheikh Omar Kiswani and Deputy Director Sheikh Najeh Bkeirat for questioning. They also summoned and arrested several Fatah members under the pretext of ”violating Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem” and arrested three Jerusalemite activists at the Allenby Bridge en route to Jordan.
Attorney Mohammed Mahmoud, who is handling the detentions in Israeli courts, says there has been a noticeable escalation in Israeli measures against youth in Jerusalem during the pandemic. “Several preventative measures have been taken in courts since mid-March against the virus. Courts are conducted via Skype where the prisoner is connected by a phone and monitor in a special room in the prisons. There are some prisons that do not have television monitors and the sessions are conducted only by phone. This makes communication difficult between the prisoner and defense team. It is hard to fully explain what is going on in the session to the prisoner. These sessions also lack the confidentiality and immunity between lawyer and client. However, the lawyers try as much as possible to clarify certain rights and points to the prisoner. What more, the glass partition in front of the judge is another impediment in terms of hearing what he is saying,” Mahmoud said.
He also mentioned how difficult these procedures were for the families waiting outside the courtroom since only one person is allowed in and the families are barred from speaking to their imprisoned children. He accused Israeli authorities of taking advantage of the Coronavirus crisis and their preventative measures to further oppress Palestinians, maintaining that several cases of abuse and arrest were recorded for supposedly violating these measures. A number of fines were also imposed, ranging from NIS500-NIS5000.
Confiscation of food packages and relief assistance:
Another aspect of Israel’s policy against Palestinians is focusing on measures against them instead of measures to combat the virus. Israeli authorities have actively pursued Palestinians, including volunteers and institutions which provide relief aid and food packages to poor families. They assaulted many of the volunteers, arrested them and confiscated the aid. In Sur Baher at the end of March, Israeli soldiers assaulted six volunteers, beating them and throwing teargas at them before confiscating a truckload of relief and food assistance.
Prior to this, Israeli forces arrested three teams disinfecting Silwan, Suwwana and the Old City and confiscated the cleaning products being used to disinfect public and vital facilities in these areas. They also arrested four others for distributing and hanging up posters to raise awareness about the coronavirus, barring them entry into the Old City.
Violation and desecration of places of worship This was apparent from the closure of the Aqsa Mosque Compound and barring entry to Muslim worshippers, including its guards and caretakers. At the same time, it assumed a much more relaxed policy with Jews in synagogues. They were able to move freely in their places of residence contrary to the policy imposed against Jerusalemites whose movement was much more limited. What’s more, Palestinians were heavily fined, ranging from NIS500 to NIS5000.
By targeting the Aqsa Mosque, Islamic Waqf officials say Israeli occupation authorities are attempting to interfere and impose Israeli sovereignty under the pretext of preventing the spread of the virus. In this regard, Israeli authorities closed the doors to Al Aqsa with the exception of “Hutta” and “Chain” Gates and kept “Dung Gate” open, the keys to which Israel has held since its occupation of Jerusalem in 1967, and which allows in settlers to the compound.
On March 20, Israeli authorities closed the gates to Al Aqsa and prevented anyone from entering both the mosque and the Old City just before Friday prayers. They claimed this was a preventative measure against the coronavirus. That day, according to Waqf estimates, only 500 Muslim worshippers prayed at the mosque even though Waqf authorities had taken the necessary measures and precautions against the epidemic. They had fully sanitized and disinfected the grounds and mosques and distributed instructions to worshippers before Friday. In addition, there were employees sanitizing worshippers’ hands inside the compound.
Meanwhile, Israeli occupation forces cracked down on worshippers who tried to pray in the streets and allies of the Old City, firing stun grenades, striking them with nightsticks and pushing them away from the Aqsa gates. Similar incidents occurred in other areas of the city, especially Wadi Joz, Musrara, Ras Al Amoud/Silwan and outside of Dung Gate.
Israeli police also issued penalties to worshippers for praying outside of the Aqsa’s gates and to youths as they walked in the city on claims they ”were not abiding by preventative measures.”
Israeli authorities took their policies up a notch when they raided the home of President of the Islamic Waqf Council, Sheikh Abdel Atheem Salham and issued him a penalty of NIS5000 on claims he ”did not abide by police orders and allowed more than the permitted number of people to enter the Aqsa grounds.” They also summoned Aqsa Mosque Director Sheikh Omar Kiswani and Aqsa Mosque Imam Amer Abdeen for questioning.
Furthermore, Israeli forces stormed the Bab Al Rahmeh prayer site and threatened to impose fines on the worshippers for ”not adhering to health ministry instructions”, also threatening worshippers that they would be fined if they gathered in the Aqsa courtyard for prayer.
Israeli authorities continued to issue orders banning Palestinians from entering the Old City and the Aqsa Mosque Compound. Eight Palestinian youths were banned from the Aqsa and seven from the Old City and travel ban orders were issued against four other Jerusalemites.
In order to avoid any further interference into Aqsa affairs by Israeli authorities, the Islamic Waqf , which is the caretaker of the Aqsa Mosque, closed the compound until further notice as a protective measure against the novel coronavirus. The same was applied to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher with only members of the clergy allowed entry.
Isolating the Old City:
Under the pretext of responding to the coronavirus pandemic, Israeli occupation authorities isolated the Old City from its surroundings. Approximately 40,000 Jerusalemites live in the Old City of Jerusalem and were suddenly cut off from the rest of East Jerusalem, whose Palestinian population is around 360,000. Only those who live within the Old City walls were allowed entrance while Jewish settlers living in settlement enclaves inside or outside it were allowed to enter and exit freely. This policy of isolation led to huge losses for shops owned by Jerusalemites many of whom could not reach their stores.
Figures provided by the Jerusalem Center for Social and Economic Rights and the Jerusalem Merchants Committee indicate that this constrictive Israeli policy, which has been implemented for the past three years, has led to the closure of an increasing number of shops in the Old City. Today around 300 shops are shuttered, a number which is likely to grow with this recent isolation.
Expansion and acceleration of settlements
It is clear that Israeli authorities have been exploiting this pandemic to continue settlement projects in Jerusalem and in the rest of the occupied Palestinian territories. This includes approval for the construction of tens of thousands of housing units in the settlement of “Atarot, north of Jerusalem, approval to start construction in the “E1” settlement project in Tur, Zaayem, Essawiyeh and Ezzariyeh where over 10,000 housing units will be built, approval for the construction of hundreds of thousands of settlement units in “Givat Hamatos” south of Jerusalem and the establishment of a new settlement neighborhood in Beit Hanina. Plans have also been put in place to build a wall separating the village of Sheikh Saad from Jabal Mukkaber. Meanwhile, Israeli authorities are floating a plan to push Shufat camp and Kufr Aqab out of Jerusalem’s municipal borders as a means of dealing with the concerning ”demographic problem” in the city.
Impeding the work of health centers
While Israel rushed to stymie coronavirus outbreaks in its own residential and settlement centers in Jerusalem, it assumed a policy of discrimination when it came to Palestinian Jerusalemites. Israeli forces purposely delayed the opening of Covid-19 testing centers in Palestinian areas. Furthermore, the majority of Jerusalemites do not speak Hebrew, the language spoken in the various Israeli health insurance funds, not to mention that over 40,000 Jerusalemites do not have access to Israeli health care services under the pretext that they live outside of the unilaterally-designated Jerusalem municipal borders.
This policy came in tandem with the crisis already felt by the Palestinian health sector in Jerusalem, reflected in the lack of necessary equipment and medical supplies in the six East Jerusalem hospitals, making them incapable of accommodating dozens of potential Covid-19 patients. The current patients have been distributed in nearby hotels for monitoring while hospitals only have 60 beds available, not to mention the lack in medicines and medical staff they suffer from.
Discriminatory measures against the prisoner movement The medical negligence towards Palestinian prisoners during the pandemic is evident by how prison services failed to take the necessary precautionary measures in response to the coronavirus. What’s more, they continued to prohibit anyone from being informed about the conditions of quarantined prisoners in the Megiddo Prison. Israeli prisoner services also banned the entry of over 140 products from the prison commissary, including basic food products such as meat, vegetables, fruit and spices. Cleaning products and disinfectants necessary for prisoners to protect themselves from Covid-19 infection were also banned.
Mistreatment of Palestinian laborers
There have been several testimonies about Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinian workers inside the Green Line, including returning workers to the Palestinian territories after suspecting they contracted Covid-19. Last month, Israeli soldiers dumped a Palestinian laborer showing symptoms of Covid-19 at the Beit Sira checkpoint without providing him with any treatment. This behavior was repeated at the Hizma military checkpoint, north of Jerusalem. Laborers are returned to the Palestinian territories on an almost daily basis without being tested, which has resulted in the spread of the virus in Palestine. At the same time, Israel unofficially opened its crossings to workers as a way to circumvent Palestinian preventative measures. They offered laborers incentives such as higher daily wages, thus exploiting their difficult living conditions and avoiding any legal obligations towards them.
Uprooting residents from their land and homes
At the height of the Coronavirus crisis, the Israeli ”civil administration” continued with its policy of confiscating Palestinian land, homes and tents. Some of these facilities were being used as emergency clinics to meet the needs of locals. On March 26, Israeli occupation forces raided Khirbet Ibzeiq in the northern Jordan Valley, confiscating steel rods and canopies designed for setting up eight tents, two equipped as clinics and four as emergency shelters for residents who were forced out of their homes. Two other tents were to be used as a mosque. Israeli forces also confiscated a corrugated-iron trailer that had been in the area for over two years, an electric generator, sand and cement bags and four loads of brick to lay the ground inside the tents.
In Ein Diyouk, west of Jericho, Israeli forces demolished three buildings which Jerusalemite farmers use as seasonal residences.
In Hebron, Israeli forces tore down a wall separating Wadi Haseen from Wadi Nasara in preparation for closing the entire area and in Deir Ballout in the Salfeet area, they demolished a farm room and water well.
It should be noted that in contrast to its measures taken in the occupied Palestinian territories, the Israeli government suspended all demolitions inside Israel during the state of emergency.
To View the Full Report as PDF
Operation Cast Lead: a Critical Study of the Goldstone Report
Date posted: January 04, 2010
By Britain Eakin for MIFTAH
Introduction
It has been one year since Israel launched its 22-day long attack codenamed Operation Cast Lead (OCL) on the Gaza Strip. Last week a British court issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Kadima opposition leader Tzipi Livni for her role in orchestrating the assault. Livni, who was Israel’s foreign minister at the time, was scheduled to visit the UK but ended up calling off her trip; the arrest warrant was cancelled as a result. However the issuing of the warrant in and of itself is an incredible feat. It is also a direct result of recommendations made in the Goldstone Report concerning how to bring justice to the Palestinian victims of OCL.
Israel launched OCL in what it said was response to years of rocket and mortar fire emanating from armed Palestinian groups operating in the Strip, invoking self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter as justification for the attack. Article 51 of the charter reads “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations...”
Israel maintains that the operation was indeed necessary for self-defense, and stated that the aim of the operation was to end rocket attacks into southern Israel from the Gaza Strip, to dismantle the ability of Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups to launch rockets and mortars into southern Israel, and to restore Israel’s deterrent capability. Yet on the first day of the operation and within the first few minutes of OCL alone, Israeli forces killed 99 members of the Palestinian police force in Gaza. The attack occurred in midday when the streets were full of people, including many school children, which spiked the death toll of the first day to over 200.
In the days that followed, the death toll increased significantly, drawing the condemnation of Palestinians, human rights groups and the international community who decried the operation as having a disproportionate and what seemed an intentional impact on civilians. The number of Palestinians killed during the operation varies, but most human rights groups put the number around 1,400 and say that an overwhelming number of those killed were civilians, including approximately 300 children. Additionally, there was extensive and severe damage to civilian objects and infrastructure; the overall impact of OCL on the civilian population of Gaza caused widespread international outcry and protests, which led to the establishment of the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, and ultimately resulted in the Goldstone Report.
The United Nations Fact Finding Mission to Gaza
The United Nations Fact Finding Mission to Gaza was established on 3 April 2009 by the President of the United Nations Human Rights Council with the purpose of investigating “all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.”
The fact-finding mission emerged as a result of UN resolution S-9/1 adopted on 12 January 2009 by the United Nations Human Rights Council at the conclusion of its 9th special session, and was drafted by Cuba, Egypt and Pakistan. Resolution S-9/1 initially sought the investigation only of Israeli violations during OCL, drawing criticism that the resolution was biased against Israel. However, prior to the drafting of the resolution, eight Israeli NGOs wrote to Israeli Attorney General Mr. Meni Mazuz requesting an independent international investigation into the allegations of grave Israeli violations of the laws of war during the Gaza operation. The eight NGOs additionally expressed their concern at the inability of the Military Advocate General’s office to initiate a fair and neutral investigation. Thus there was also a very strong push from within Israel itself for a fair and independent international investigation into the allegations that the laws of war were seriously violated during OCL.
South African Justice Richard Goldstone, former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, was selected by the President of the Human Rights Council to head the commission. Justice Goldstone, a Jew and self-proclaimed Zionist who sits on the board of Governors of Hebrew University, is a man of impressive stature with an impeccable reputation for fairness and justice. He headed the former prosecution for the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and agreed to head the fact-finding mission to Gaza only after asking that all violations of international law be investigated, not just allegations against Israel. According to the mandate, “the mission determined it was required to consider any actions by all parties that might have constituted violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law.”
This allowed the mission to investigate and document Palestinian violations as well, making it more difficult to claim that the findings of the report were biased. However, aside from drafting a report that would be deemed fair and balanced, the mission also held the opinion that denying accountability on both sides only serves to reinforce impunity, which has a negative impact on the credibility of the UN, the international community and the peace process itself. Thus the overall aim of the Goldstone Report seemed to be concerned with ending the cycle of violence by halting impunity from violations of international law through holding those violators accountable. The report asserts that accountability would deter the eruption of such extreme violence in the future.
In addition to investigating violations of international law during the military operations, the mandate also required it to review related actions in the entire Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel, thereby providing a larger framework through which to understand the context from which the violence of Operation Cast Lead emerged.” The mission considered both Israeli and Palestinian actions from 1967 through January 2009, placing particular emphasis on the Israeli imposed blockade of the Gaza Strip, and placing OCL within the context of the ongoing blockade of the Strip and overall Israeli policies toward the occupied Palestinian territory.
In this sense the report is exhaustive, thorough and meticulously documents Israeli occupation practices that violate international law and the human rights of Palestinians, drawing a direct correlation between these practices and OCL. The report gives considerable attention to Israeli policies of house demolitions, evictions, construction of the wall and settlements, settler violence against Palestinians, the separation of the West Bank from east Jerusalem and Gaza, Israeli detention policies, and the denial of due process to Palestinian prisoners. The mission also examined discriminatory policies within Israel against its Palestinian citizens and attempts to stifle dissent within Israel. In this regard, the report is extraordinary in its scope and deeply profound in its findings. Simply put, the conclusions of the report cannot and should not be ignored in the pursuit of peace and justice for Palestine and Israel.
The Mission’s Framework and Methodology
The task of the mission was very specific and according to the report itself “interpreted the mandate as requiring it to place the civilian population of the region at the center of its concerns regarding the violations of international law.” The mission conducted its investigation of the impact of the operation on civilians within the framework of general international law, the United Nations Charter, international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law.
Because the mandate of the mission very specifically required it to investigate the impact on civilians according to international humanitarian law (IHL) and the laws of war, it was not intended or permitted to investigate deeper questions of aggression and how Operation Cast Lead was initiated. The framework of the report assumed that Israel had the right to self-defense according to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Thus the investigation did not specifically explore whether or not OCL was a war of last resort or if all other diplomatic options had been exhausted in dealing with the rocket fire from Gaza.
The Goldstone Report does document very thoroughly all terms and breaches of the six-month Egyptian-brokered truce between Israel and Hamas, which was intended to halt the rocket and mortar fire and ease the Israeli blockade of the Strip. The report also acknowledges that the Israeli blockade of the Strip was not eased during the truce, and notes that the Israeli incursion into the Strip on 4 November 2008 in which six Hamas operatives were killed played a significant role in the breakdown of the truce. However, it does not provide any recommendations or draw any conclusions regarding the success of the truce in reducing rocket and mortar fire from the Strip. Instead, the mission focused on examining to what extend Israel took feasible precaution in protecting the civilian population of Gaza, to what extent Palestinian armed groups took feasible precaution in protecting the civilian population of Gaza, and to what extent Palestinian armed groups placed the civilian population of southern Israel in danger.
Israel’s Reactions
In response to allegations that OCL had a disproportionate impact and effect on Palestinian civilians, Israel responded that Hamas launched attacks from within civilian areas and near civilian objects including schools, hospitals, ambulances and mosques, thereby using the population of Gaza as a human shield. Because of this, Israel claimed that Hamas had forced the Israeli military into a type of urban warfare that could not distinguish between military and civilian objects and that civilian casualties were an unfortunate but justified result of this type of warfare. Israel’s government officials continue to insist that OCL was not directed at the civilian population of Gaza, but at those responsible for firing rockets and mortars at civilian centers in southern Israel.
For example, in response to the recent arrest warrant issued against her, Livni’s office said she was “proud of all her decisions regarding Operation Cast Lead.” This should not be surprising considering that OCL enjoyed an overwhelming majority of Israeli approval; 90% of the Israeli public supported the operation in Gaza and continue to insist that it was a just war. In fact during the operation some Israelis, many of them from the southern Israeli town of Sderot which has been one of the primary areas impacted by the rocket and mortar attacks, gathered with journalists on a string of sandy hilltops near the Gaza border to watch the bombardment of the coastal enclave. Spectators brought binoculars, lawn chairs, sack lunches and snapped photos of each other with plumes of smoke rising from the besieged Strip in the background. Most expressed gratitude that the Israeli government was finally taking action against the rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza, rejecting accusations that the force used was disproportionate and placing the blame for the assault squarely onto the shoulders of the people of Gaza.
Moreover, last March in the wake of the operation Israeli Major General Yoav Galant reiterated this sentiment about OCL when he said "A feeling of pride washes over me because we have a moral army that adheres to international law." This statement seems to reflect the general Israeli popular opinion concerning OCL, and explains why there was such anger and outrage over the Goldstone Report within Israel, which dismissed the report as unfair, biased and an attempt to undermine Israel’s right to defend itself. It also seems to indicate a severe lack of awareness and understanding amongst the Israeli public concerning the origins of the violence and the reality of Israel’s policies in the Palestinian territories.
It is no surprise then that Israel rejected the report’s findings and that most Israelis have not bothered to read the report, the contents of which are unsettling and deeply disturbing to them, particularly for a population that can easily choose to live in denial about Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories. The conclusions reached by the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict determined that the overall aims of OCL were not based upon self-defense from the rocket attacks but were “directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population.” Thus the conclusions of the report directly contradict and challenge the dominant Israeli narrative that Israel operated according to and with respect for international law. Moreover, the report punches a dramatic hole in the assertion that the Israeli army is the most moral army in the world. It is very difficult for many Israelis to grapple with the assertion that their government and military intentionally target Palestinian civilians. In the collective Israeli consciousness in which Israelis are morally superior, it is imagined that only Palestinians target civilians.
International Law
Under international law, both Israeli military forces and armed Palestinian groups are entitled to engage in military action against the other, and both are entitled to engage in military action for purposes of self-defense. However, any such attacks must be undertaken and designed to achieve military objectives and target military objects. In order for an object to be considered a military object, two criteria must be fulfilled; the object has to contribute effectively to the military action of the enemy, and its destruction, capture or neutralization must offer a definite military advantage for the other side. The principle of distinction under customary IHL prohibits direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects.
In the event that attacks from civilian objects occur, the principle of proportionality must be considered, in which disproportionate harm to civilians that produces no clear military advantage become prohibited. The principle of distinction also holds true even in the event that one party to a conflict does not have the means or the military capability to attack the enemy’s military targets.
This has always been a dilemma for the Palestinians who have never had the military means or military strength to fight Israel equally; as the occupying power Israel has always maintained military and strategic dominance over the Palestinian people. Thus the conflict has always been an asymmetrical one – these are not two equal powers fighting each other on equal ground with equal means. Israel is the world’s 4th strongest military power and has access to the most sophisticated and deadly weaponry. Palestinians, on the other hand remain a stateless and occupied people who have access to very limited military weaponry and capability.
Yet the Goldstone Report undoubtedly recognizes the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to struggle for their inherent right to self-determination. However, the mission and the report reject claims made by a minority of individuals within armed Palestinian groups that the deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians with the rocket and mortar attacks is justified. The report rejects that reprisals in response to the killing of Palestinian civilians by Israeli military are legitimate. According to the Goldstone Report, under international law “resistance movements against colonialism and occupation are regarded as international armed conflicts” in which “any action of resistance pursuant to the right of self-determination should be exercised with full respect of other human rights and IHL.”
One can argue the logistics of how an occupied people without the necessary military means to strike at purely military targets ought to resist their occupation, particularly when negotiations and the international community have repeatedly failed them. Nonetheless, the Goldstone Report is clear in its condemnation of the rocket and mortar attacks and Palestinian violence directed at Israeli civilians: this type of violence is intended to spread terror amongst the civilian population, constituting war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity, and under no circumstances can it be tolerated.
Yet the report also acknowledges the high number of Palestinian casualties in Gaza during the time period the rocket and mortar attacks have occurred. Death tolls from two particular incidents are worth noting. From the Israeli “disengagement” from Gaza in 2005 until November 2006, Israeli forces killed 525 Palestinians in Gaza. Then in February of 2008 during operation “Hot Winter,” Israeli forces killed 202 Palestinians in Gaza. The report thus asserts that the cycle of violence makes it difficult for Israelis to believe that Palestinians intend to let them live in peace and security in their state, and for Palestinians to believe that Israelis intend to let them live in peace and security in a state of their own. This distrust serves to feed the vicious cycle.
The Mission’s Findings
Despite Israel’s claims that the report singled it out alone, the mission found that both Israel and armed Palestinian groups committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. As the occupying power Israel receives the majority of the attention throughout the report, although all Palestinian abuses are well documented in the report including inter-Palestinian violence between Hamas and Fatah, abuses against the Palestinian people by both the PA and Hamas, Palestinian attacks directed at Israeli civilians and the protections and rights thus denied to captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit as a prisoner of war.
In relation to Israel and OCL, the mission examined very specific incidents and cases in which international humanitarian law was explicitly violated, particularly in relation to the principles of distinction and proportionality. This included the deliberate and intentional disabling of what little remained of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure including the destruction of wells, agricultural land, Gaza’s only operating flour mill, chicken farms and a cement factory in addition to the destruction and razing of civilian homes. The mission found that these actions were not in response to a direct threat to Israeli military forces and that no military advantage was gained from their destruction; the mission concluded these attacks were deliberate and intended to produce increased suffering of the civilian population of Gaza.
The mission also took particular interest in the attack on the UNRWA compound, which seems to offer exceptional representation of Israel’s overall aims and policies during OCL. The UNRWA compound was sheltering some 700 Palestinian civilians when it came under Israeli attack with seven white phosphorous shells and three high explosive missiles on 3 January 2009. What troubled the mission most about the nature of the attack is that the UNRWA compound had a large fuel depot, with 120,000 liters of fuel stored underground and 49,000 liters of fuel stored in tankers above ground, which could have resulted in an immense catastrophe had the fuel ignited. The compound also stored substantial quantities of food, medical supplies and blankets, which according to former UNRWA Director-General Karen AbuZayd were the supplies for all the humanitarian agencies in the Gaza Strip. Fires resulting from Israeli shelling destroyed much of the aid.
UN officials at the compound were in constant communication with Israeli authorities that had coordinates of all UN facilities, including the UNRWA compound. Moreover, Israeli military officials were aware of the most vulnerable parts of the compound, in particular the fuel depot. On the day of the attack on the compound, numerous phone calls were made to inform the Israelis of the attack on the compound and the immediate danger due to the fuel depot. However, the attacks continued unabated for more than three hours despite the exceedingly high level of communication between UN officials in the compound and the Israeli military.
In response to the attack on the UNRWA compound, the Israelis initially asserted that they had been attacked from the compound. Later they backtracked and said that the white phosphorous shells had been fired to produce a smoke screen to provide cover from Hamas fighters who were in the area, and that all remnants of munitions that landed in the compound were unintended. The mission rejected this claim because the munitions landed directly inside the compound in extremely vulnerable parts of it. The mission also concluded that due to the precision of Israeli military technology it is unlikely that mistakes of this nature were made, and also unlikely that the same mistake could have been made ten times over a three-hour time period. Moreover, all witnesses interviewed whom the mission deemed to be credible reported that there was no fire coming from within or near the compound while it was being shelled.
The mission found that even if Israeli claims were taken at face value despite their contradictions the attack on the UNRWA compound failed to strike a balance between risk to civilian life and military advantage gained. In this sense, the mission was more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Israeli military commanders in what would otherwise appear to be a deliberate attack on a well-known and easily identifiable civilian object with an extremely high risk for civilian casualties. Moreover, the fact that fires destroyed much of the humanitarian aid being stored in the compound would seem to indicate that this may have been the intention of the shelling of the compound, fitting into the overall policy of inflicting greater suffering upon the civilian population of Gaza.
Additionally the mission found many instances in which Palestinian civilians, whose status as civilians was known to Israeli military forces, were intentionally targeted and killed. The mission also found that Israeli forces used Palestinians as human shields, forcing them to enter buildings ahead of Israeli soldiers to check for combatants or booby traps. Furthermore, the mission concluded from facts gathered that Israel committed the following grave breaches of the 4th Geneva Convention: “willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.” The Mission also indicated that the use of human shields constitutes a war crime.
Additionally, the mission concluded that Israel’s efforts to warn Palestinians of imminent attacks through phone calls, dropping of leaflets and the use of lighter explosives as warning indicators were insufficient and did not relieve Israeli forces from taking all additional precautions in protecting the civilian population of Gaza. The mission reached this conclusion because warnings were often unclear, or directed civilians to city centers that had previously come under heavy attack. The report also draws necessary attention to the deadly predicament the population of Gaza found itself in; they were extremely limited in their ability to flee to safety. Gaza is on of the world’s most densely populated areas, of which all borders were sealed and closed. Thus they did not have the option to become refugees – there was literally no place for them to go.
Palestinian Violations
The mission found that Palestinian armed groups were present in urban areas during hostilities and did launch rockets from urban areas. The mission concluded that some armed Palestinians might not have distinguished themselves from civilians at all times. However the mission found no evidence to suggest that civilians were directed to areas where attacks were being launched, nor that they were forced to stay in areas where attacks were underway. In this sense, the mission largely rejects the Israeli assertion that Palestinian armed groups used the civilian population of Gaza as a human shield in order to deter Israeli attacks. Moreover, the mission noted that the government of Israel has produced absolutely no evidence to support its claims that Palestinian combatants “mingle routinely with civilians in order to cover their movements.”
Further, the mission could not conclude that mosques were used for military purposes, nor did they find any evidence that attacks were launched from hospitals or that ambulances were used for military purposes. Moreover, the mission concluded that UN facilities were not used to stage attacks or military activities, though it could not discount the possibility that Palestinian armed groups may have been active in the vicinity of UN facilities. If Palestinian armed groups engaged in military activity in the vicinity of civilian or protected buildings, the mission concluded that this would unnecessarily place the civilian population of Gaza in danger. However the conduct of military action in urban areas does not by itself violate international law.
Rocket Attacks
In relation to the Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks the mission noted their psychological impact on the civilian population of southern Israel. The attacks have killed 19 Israeli civilians within Israel between June 2004 and January 2009. The mission noted that the attacks interfere with their right to education, the ability of Israelis to lead a normal social life, and have caused destruction to property. The mission found that the rocket and mortar fire constitutes indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population of southern Israel, and that such attacks are deliberate and intended to spread terror, which constitutes a violation of international law in the form of war crimes and possibly even crimes against humanity.
The mission also found that public declarations by Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups of the intention to target civilians as reprisals to Israeli violence against Palestinians is contrary to international humanitarian law. However, the mission also noted with concern that many Bedouin communities in southern Israel within rocket and mortar range, which remain unrecognized by Israel do not have warning systems, nor are any of their structures reinforced to protect them from rocket attacks. Furthermore, Palestinian towns in southern Israel that lie within rocket range are not afforded reinforcements for any of their structures; only the predominantly Jewish towns are. This finding brings attention to discriminatory policies and practices within Israel against its non-Jewish citizens.
Additionally, the mission concluded that Gilad Shalit meets prisoner of war status and should be afforded all rights due to him under the 3rd Geneva Convention including protection, humane treatment, external communication, and visitation by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) without delay. However the mission noted that the continued blockade of Gaza until Shalit’s release would constitute collective punishment against the civilian population of Gaza.
The Israeli Blockade of Gaza
The mission examined OCL as part and parcel of the Israeli siege of the Gaza Strip. Israel began blocking aid to Gaza in 2006, following the success of Hamas in the Palestinian parliamentary elections with the intention of convincing the population of Gaza to withdraw their support from Hamas. When Hamas seized power of Gaza in 2007 Israel put much greater restrictions on the flow of goods including fuel, electricity and food into the Strip. Additionally, Israel declared Gaza a hostile entity and insists it is no longer the occupying power of Gaza due to its withdrawal of settlers and military forces from Gaza in 2005; on this basis Israel asserts it is no longer responsible for Gaza’s welfare.
The impacts of the blockade have been severe, and the mission placed much emphasis on examining the effects of the blockade. The mission found that “by December 2008 the destructive impact of the blockade on the local economy had doubled unemployment levels. While in 2007 79% of households lived below the official poverty line (US$ 4 per capita/day) and some 70% below the deep poverty line (US$ 3 per capita/day), these figures were expected to increase by the end of 2008” and this was before OCL, which greatly exacerbated the already dire circumstances. Further, the mission determined that “the blockade and the military hostilities have created a situation in which most people are destitute. Women and children have been particularly affected. The current situation has been described as a crisis of human dignity.”
Finally, the mission concluded that ‘the expected impact” and what it believes was the primary purpose of the blockade “was to bring about a situation in which the civilian population would find life so intolerable that they would leave (if it were possible) or turn Hamas out of office, as well as to collectively punish the civilian population.” The mission saw OCL as a continuation of the policy of punishing the population of Gaza as a whole, intended to increase their level of suffering. The deliberate targeting of the food and sanitation infrastructure, along with the targeting of the UNRWA compound, which destroyed much of Gaza’s humanitarian aid, makes this assertion difficult to refute.
Conclusions of the Report
Given the advanced Israeli military technology and ability for precision, the mission concluded that “the incidents and patterns of events considered in the report are the result of deliberate planning and policy decisions.” Tactics used in Gaza were consistent with practices in the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006 and reflect what is known as the Dahiya Doctrine. The Dahiya Doctrine transforms civilians and civilian objects into military targets, and proscribes the infliction of disproportionate force and damage to civilian property and infrastructure, and thereby great suffering to civilian populations to achieve political aims. The mission found little doubt that disproportionate destruction and violence against Palestinian civilians during OCL were part of deliberate Israeli planning and policy.
The mission further concluded that the blockade on Gaza, which was severely worsened by Operation Cast Lead, constitutes collective punishment in violation of international humanitarian law. In further relation to the blockade, the mission found that the denial to Palestinians of their right to sustenance, employment, housing, water, freedom of movement, and the limitation of their access to a court of law could amount to persecution, which is a crime against humanity. The mission also found that “Israel is still duty bound under the 4th Geneva Convention… to ensure the supply of foodstuff, medical and hospital items and others to meet the humanitarian needs of the population of the Gaza Strip without qualification.” This last finding is particularly important because Israel is trying to escape responsibility for the welfare of the population of Gaza by denying it is still the occupying power there.
Finally, the mission reached a very significant and profound conclusion regarding the source of violence and the way to redress it. According to the Goldstone Report:
“As the Mission focused on investigating and analyzing the specific matters within its mandate, Israel’s continuing occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank emerged as the fundamental factor underlying violations of international humanitarian and human rights law against the protected population and undermining prospects for development and peace. Israel’s failure to acknowledge and exercise its responsibilities as the Occupying Power further exacerbated the effects of occupation on the Palestinian people, and continue to do so. Furthermore, the harsh and unlawful practices of occupation, far from quelling resistance, breed it, including its violent manifestations. The Mission is of the view that ending occupation is a prerequisite for the return of a dignified life for Palestinians, as well as development and a peaceful solution to the conflict.”
Recommendations of the Report
According to international law, when serious violations of human rights occur, investigations must be conducted, and if appropriate, prosecution of allegations of serious violations must ensue. The Goldstone Report was endorsed by the Human Rights Council on 16 October 2009 and will now go on to the Security Council for further consideration. The Security Council can then refer the report to the International Criminal Court (ICC) should Israel and Hamas fail to conduct proper investigations into the allegations of war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity, which would allow for the trying of those directly involved in the planning and implementing of OCL. However, the report will more than likely not move beyond the Security Council because the US is likely to veto further consideration of it.
If that happens, there are two additional options. The UN Secretary General can refer the matter to the UN General Assembly, which under Resolution 377 can take action if the Security Council fails to act in matters that produce a threat to peace, a breach of peace or an act of aggression. This would potentially allow the General Assembly to refer the matter to the ICC if it does not move beyond the Security Council.
However, the most likely possibility is that those guilty of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity will be arrested and tried under universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction allows national courts to try cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity, even when those crimes are not committed in the nation trying the case, and even when those guilty of the crimes are not nationals of the nation trying the case. The recent arrest warrant issued for Tzipi Livni in the UK was an exercise of this power.
However, it remains to be seen if the Goldstone Report will have enough influence to result in a prosecution. Attempts were made to try former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Belgium for his roles in the attack on the West Bank village of Qibya in 1953, and the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, including the infamous massacre in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. The attempts to arrest and try him failed, and given the immense political pressure Israel will exert to avoid the arrest and trial of any of its military commanders or political leaders, it is uncertain if the Goldstone Report will be able to deliver this kind of justice. Case in point, UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said in the wake of Livni’s arrest warrant that changes to the UK’s legal system might be necessary to prevent this kind of situation from arising again.
In addition to the recommendation of referral to the ICC should Israel and Hamas fail to conduct proper investigations, civilian victims of war crimes and grave violations of international law are entitled to reparations for damages or losses incurred during hostilities. The mission reached the conclusion that there is very limited room, if any for Palestinians to seek reparations from Israel. Thus the mission recommended the establishment of an international mechanism to provide compensation for Palestinian victims of OCL.
Conclusion
The Goldstone Report took note that Palestinians and human rights organizations have grown weary in the face of numerous reports and initiatives that have failed to produce any meaningful or tangible results in the pursuit of peace and justice. The report further notes the enabling impact this has on the formation and implementation of Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories that violate IHL. Thus we have arrived at a critical juncture for the future of Palestine and Israel; Justice Goldstone has said in interviews that he does not believe there is a genuine peace process. Yet there is an obvious and urgent need for one that incorporates respect for and adherence to international humanitarian law.
The trial and prosecution of war criminals would be a major victory in the pursuit of justice for victims of OCL. However, it will prove futile if it does not deter future inflictions of gross violence from occurring. Perhaps then the most profound revelations of the Goldstone Report do not pertain to the allegations and assertions that war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity were committed during OCL. Perhaps the more important revelations of the report, and the ones we should concern ourselves with are the ones that attempt to uncover the root causes of the violence; the occupation and the denial of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.
Finally, the report also cautions against the use of the kind of grotesque military violence witnessed during OCL, drawing much needed attention to the long-term consequences of it. Both Palestinian and Israeli victims are likely to develop feelings of hatred in response to attacks on civilians. However, the level of violence inflicted on the people of Gaza was severe, deep and far-reaching; the impacts will be felt for generations to come. The mission found that 30% of children screened in UNRWA schools in Gaza have mental health problems, while 10% lost family, friends, their homes and all of their belongings. Additionally, the World Health Organization has estimated that 30,000 children in Gaza will need prolonged psychological support, and warned of the potential for many of these children to grow up with aggressive attitudes and hatred.
The question that needs to be asked, and ultimately addressed, is what kind of future will the use of this kind of violence create? OCL demonstrated an escalation in the level of violence, and seems to indicate that the level of violence will only grow more severe. For this, the Goldstone Report condemns Israel for “failing to protect its own citizens by refusing to acknowledge the futility of resorting to violent means and military power.” Thus there is much to be gained and learned from the results of the fact-finding mission to Gaza. Israel should not bury its head in the sand in the face of the report’s findings, nor should the international community continue its failure to act. Justice just might be the first step on the road to peace. In order for that to happen, the era of impunity needs to be replaced by an era of accountability. This is the ultimate message of the Goldstone Report, and one that will hopefully be received.
Britain Eakin is a Writer for the Media and Information Department at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mid@miftah.org.
To View the Full Special Study as PDF (208 KB)
EU Challenges Israel's Claim to Jerusalem
Date posted: December 09, 2009
By Britain Eakin for MIFTAH
Things have not been going well for Israel this year. Still reeling from the fallout of the Goldstone Report and the international outcry over Operation Cast Lead, Israel finds itself in the hot seat once again, requiring it to wage yet another “diplomatic campaign” as damage control. Last week the EU heads of commission of Jerusalem released a report which is updated annually and presented to the Palestinian Authority. The report accuses Israel of actively pursuing the annexation of east Jerusalem and undermining hopes for peace with the Palestinians by rendering the two-state solution infeasible. The report was delivered to various institutions in Brussels, and apparently was the impetus behind the recent Swedish initiative calling for formal EU recognition of east Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state. The EU foreign ministers voted on it yesterday, but dropped the original Swedish proposal. They did, however reaffirm that Jerusalem should be a joint capital of two states.
The Swedish initiative drew sweeping criticism and condemnation by the Israeli government, which said the initiative would only serve to harm and undermine peace efforts, and warned the EU to keep their hands off Jerusalem. Yet the original initiative was far from controversial and reiterated the basic premise behind the internationally accepted vision of a two-state solution. In fact, the initiative stated that “The European Union calls for the urgent resumption of negotiations that will lead, within an agreed timeframe, to a two-state solution with an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable state of Palestine, comprising the West Bank and Gaza and with east Jerusalem as its capital, living side by side in peace and security with the state of Israel.”
Moreover, the initiative asserts that a comprehensive peace is of fundamental interest to the EU and must be achieved on the basis of previous initiatives such as the Madrid Principles, relevant UN resolutions, the Road Map, agreements previously reached by the parties, and the Arab Initiative. Thus the Swedish initiative did not stray too far from already existing principles and international norms regarding the creation of a Palestinian state, yet Israel has responded with absolute indignation to it.
Perhaps one aspect of what troubled Israel so greatly about the initiative was its expressed support for the resumption of negotiations leading to final status talks where the “core issues” will be resolved. The core issues have been on the backburner of the negotiating table since the peace process commenced in the early 1990s. Yet they are precisely the issues that need to be addressed if any significant progress will ever be made. The most pressing of these issues include borders, Jerusalem, refugees, security and water. It is no coincidence that Israel has insisted these issues be reserved for a “later time.” Time is in fact Israel’s greatest weapon, which it has used very effectively to create what it hopes are irreversible facts on the ground.
The continual delay of final status talks has allowed Israel free reign to do as it pleases, which is precisely what the EU commission of Jerusalem report and the Swedish initiative addressed and called Israel out on. Israel, of course wants to determine and control the borders, annex as much land as it can, have control over Jerusalem, and maintain control of water resources in the West Bank. Moreover, under no circumstances does Israel want to absorb any Palestinian refugees; this would threaten the demographic balance of Israel in which Jews are currently the majority.
Yet more telling was the Swedish initiative’s condemnation of what it termed Israel’s discriminatory treatment of Palestinians in east Jerusalem, expressing grave concern over the situation there within the context of Israel’s ultimate plan for annexation. According to the initiative, the Council of the European Union has never recognized the annexation of east Jerusalem, and called for an unspecified resolution of the issue of Jerusalem as the capital of two states. Israel’s swift campaign to pressure EU officials to withdraw support for the initiative, which resulted in the watered down version they approved, seems to indicate it doesn’t appreciate any interference in the steps it has taken to slowly but surely annex east Jerusalem. Israel’s response to the initiative could not make its intentions any clearer – it wants an undivided Jerusalem entirely under Israeli control, not one shared with the Palestinians.
To this end, the original initiative demanded a cessation of settlement activities and the dismantling of outposts, and also reminded Israel that the settlements, the separation barrier and the policy of house demolitions are all illegal under international law. At this point we all know that reminders, initiatives, resolutions and reports have done nothing to actually stop Israel’s illegal occupation practices in their tracks. This would seem to indicate that the EU vote to back Jerusalem as a joint capital and the EU commission of Jerusalem report will simply join the ranks of all the other failed attempts to hold Israel accountable.
Yet what is interesting is that the EU commission of Jerusalem has never made its report public before, and Israel has always pressured them not to, citing fear that it might exacerbate what it terms is the already negative European image of Israel. The truth is, Israel has enjoyed control over media perceptions of its illegal occupation practices for decades and has a powerful arsenal of weapons with which to turn down the volume of and deflect attention away from those who bring attention to them. Perhaps the decision made by the EU commission of Jerusalem to release the report is an indication that Israel’s impunity is beginning to wane, and its previous strategies of silencing voices of conscience are no longer as effective.
Even if nothing tangible comes from the EU commission of Jerusalem report or the EU vote to back Jerusalem as a joint capital, they nonetheless represent a very positive step in the right direction. Furthermore, they may be an indication that the tide of world opinion of Israel is finally shifting in the favor of justice. Until more governmental bodies have the courage to boldly address Israel’s illegal occupation practices, nothing is likely to change here. I can only hope my own US government will follow the EU’s lead and recognize that maintaining the status quo hasn’t worked. Though it remains to be seen what the impact will be, at least someone is trying a much needed new approach.
Britain Eakin is a Writer for the Media and Information Program at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mip@miftah.org.
Ramla or Ramallah: Crossing Borders and Boundaries
Date posted: December 03, 2009
By Britain Eakin for MIFTAH
On the Muslim holiday of Eid Al Adha, I traveled to Tel-Aviv for a belated Thanksgiving celebration with a dear friend, who I will call Yael. Yael is a Jewish Israeli with dual American citizenship whom I met in the US years ago, long before I knew anything about Israel or Palestine. However, as I’ve become more politically aware concerning Palestine, our friendship has developed an uncomfortable tension. This tension was particularly agitated when I started posting articles on Facebook that were critical of Israeli policies in Palestine, the height of which occurred during Operation Cast Lead, along with my outspoken criticism of it.
My political expressions via Facebook deeply offended Yael, who saw my posts as one-sided and interpreted them as a direct personal attack on her. The hurt ran so deep that even until very recently it was uncertain if our friendship would survive our political differences. This meeting was our first since the tension erupted and since I’ve been in Palestine this time, and was a sincere attempt to repair our damaged friendship.
Last year when I was here, I spent a significant amount of time in Israel, much of it with Yael. This time I’ve mostly stayed in the West Bank and have ventured into Israel on very few occasions. The hassle of crossing Qalandiya checkpoint often deters me, yet when I do go I try to engage with Jewish Israelis, making a point not to shy away from telling them I live in Ramallah. I do this for two reasons: one because I enjoy the looks of shock on their faces when I tell them I live here, and two because I enjoy hearing their responses, which are quite telling.
On this trip the initial responses were the same without fail; with complete looks of surprise on their faces they all asked me if I said “Ramla (an Arab city inside Israel) or Ramallah,” as if I could not possibly have said the latter. Once it becomes clear that I did indeed say “Ramallah” a series of questions inevitably ensues; in my experience, Jewish Israelis become very curious when they encounter someone who actually lives on “the other side.” I am a strange and interesting creature to them.
Yael and I spent Eid preparing a Thanksgiving feast and discussing the tension between us. As we cooked we took turns sharing our feelings with each other and tried to reach an understanding of where the other person was coming from. In the end, we decided to let bygones be bygones but did not come to a decision about how to walk the delicate political line of our friendship. In the past, we mulled over the idea of never discussing politics again. Yet even if we had made that decision I don’t believe it would stick. My life in Ramallah is much too interesting to ignore for a Jewish Israeli who has never been to the West Bank, and my conscience won’t let me shy away from what I have born witness to here.
After we finished cooking, Yael and I took the food over to her friend’s house where five of her friends, all British Jews, joined us for the feast. Halfway into the meal, the daughter of one of Yael’s friends asked me where I live. I told her I live in Ramallah, at which point her eyes grew wide and she asked me “Ramla, or Ramallah?” Once I clarified that I live in Ramallah, the questioning commenced.
The first question asked was whether or not I have to cover my hair here. I told them it’s not necessary, and pointed out the considerable Christian minority in Palestine, to which one of them responded that she thought all Palestinians were Muslims. They were also surprised to learn that you can buy alcohol here, and that some restaurants actually serve it. They asked about my social life, wanting to know if I socialize with Palestinians or other foreigners. I told them my contact with other foreigners is very limited and that I mostly interact with Palestinians. They inquired about what kind of television is available here and if we get any Israeli stations. They also asked if I feel safe here, to which I responded that I feel so safe I have no problem walking home alone late at night.
Additionally, they wanted to know if I was questioned while crossing Qalandiya checkpoint – I told them I only have to show my passport photo and my most recent entry visa. I could tell as they questioned me about the checkpoint that it represents a clear boundary in their minds; one between safety and danger. The idea of a checkpoint seems to put their minds at ease concerning who has access to Israel.
As they questioned me it became very clear that my choice to live in Ramallah politicizes me whether I like it or not, making me a conduit for information. Although many Jewish Israelis I’ve met have expressed a deep-seated fear of Palestine and Palestinians, they are also eager to know what it’s like here, and I represent a portal into what is perceived as a forbidden world of danger. Yet as the girls questioned me, I began to realize just how serious the gap between the two places has grown, and I also realized the lack of accurate information they have about Israeli policies, leading them to be largely unaware of what the reality of life is like for Palestinians.
For example, the Goldstone Report came up briefly and one of the girls stated that the report was a farce because it only criticized Israel. I asked if she had read the report and she said no; this means her beliefs about the report are shaped entirely by the media and hearsay, which clearly omitted the fact that the report condemned the firing rockets into Israeli civilian territory as war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. More accurate information about Palestine and Israeli policies in the territories is readily available – it seems to me a matter of seeking to know or choosing to block it out. Yet even if most of the time the choice is made to block it out, the choice I’ve made to live in Ramallah invariably forces the issue of Palestine to the surface, making it impossible to ignore in my presence.
As someone who has the privilege of being able to travel freely between the two places, I realize that I am at times a bridge between the two worlds, particularly as contact between the two people becomes more severely limited. I am not entirely comfortable in this role and have not yet figured out the best way to navigate the crossing of these boundaries. It is important for me to hear Yael’s perspectives, but it is also important for me to find a way of expressing my own personal truths, whether it be telling my Palestinian friends that I have Israeli friends in Tel-Aviv, or telling my Israeli friends what their government and army is doing in the Palestinian territories. For now I will continue to live in Ramallah and hope that some good, no matter how small it might be, will come from my presence here and my ability to cross boundaries.
Britain Eakin is a Writer for the Media and Information Program at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mip@miftah.org.
The Light Rail to Nowhere
Date posted: November 25, 2009
By Britain Eakin for Miftah
Living in Ramallah is like living in a bubble in many ways. The Israeli occupation is not always overtly visible here, but comes clearly into focus once you begin to travel away from the city. I recently made the journey from Ramallah to Jerusalem, which I tend to avoid due of the hassle of crossing Qalandiya checkpoint - I often get stuck at Qalandiya for at least an hour when trying to get to Jerusalem. But once through the checkpoint, I am always glad I made the journey, if not only to expose myself to the reality of life for Palestinians in east Jerusalem, but also to burst the bubble of living in Ramallah.
On the way to Jerusalem from Qalandiya, one can witness many ugly aspects of the occupation. On this trip I took particular interest in the unsightly mess of the slow construction of the Jerusalem Light Rail project, which has disrupted life for many and left an ugly scar on the city’s surface. However, more troubling than the physical scars the rail project has left on the cityscape are the intentions behind the rail’s construction. Israel claims that the rail project was intended to reduce traffic congestion, clean up pollution, and replace Turkish-era infrastructure, but says it would also serve as a model for light rail projects in other Israeli cities, such as Tel-Aviv.
Palestinians, on the other hand, see it as a way for Israel to further entrench its control over east Jerusalem. The rail system would enable Israel to easily connect many of the illegal settlements in east Jerusalem to Central and West Jerusalem, thereby reinforcing these facts on the ground, despite the fact that their existence creates one of the greatest obstacles to the establishment of east Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state.
Additionally, east Jerusalem is internationally recognized as occupied territory; its political status has yet to be determined. On this basis many experts in international law assert that any actions taken to alter the status of the city and which deny Palestinians the protections afforded them by international law have no validity. The laying of the rail tracks takes Israel one giant step closer to permanent annexation of east Jerusalem.
In fact, the Jerusalem Light Rail project should be seen as part of a larger Israeli strategy for east Jerusalem, and within the context of the creation of a “Greater Jerusalem.” The vision of a Greater Jerusalem is one that expands over and controls the central portion of the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, and covers a 100-square mile area reaching deep into the West Bank.
This strategy aims to alter the demographics in Israel’s favor and to annex as much Palestinian land as possible. Thus the Light Rail project works in conjunction with Israeli policies of house demolitions, evictions, and the expansion of Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem and surrounding areas, all of which serve the Israeli objective of creating a “Greater Jerusalem.”
The policies that serve to meet this aim play themselves out in a harsh manner. Israel has made construction permits nearly impossible for Palestinians in east Jerusalem to obtain, using the pretext that structures built without such permits are “illegal” as a weak legal justification for house demolitions. A demolition involves the physical destruction of a family’s home with explosives or by bulldozer, often with little warning and with no compensation. To add insult to injury, families whose homes are demolished are often fined by the Jerusalem municipality if they themselves do not clear out the rubble of the remains.
Evictions occur when Israeli settlers commandeer Palestinian homes with the help of hired guards, Israeli police or soldiers, forcing them and their belongings out of the house and onto the streets. Those who forcibly take over Palestinian homes generally insist that they have ownership over the property through court orders. I witnessed this phenomenon in the summer of 2008, when I visited the al Kurd family home in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of east Jerusalem; half of their home was taken over by Jewish settlers, sanctioned by the Israeli Supreme Court who upheld the settlers claim to the property and granted them the keys to the home, despite the fact that the al-Kurd family had lived there since 1956. They were evicted last November.
In addition to house demolitions and evictions, Israel has been hard at work developing settlements in east Jerusalem such as Ne‘eV Ya‘akov, Pisgat Ze‘ev, and the French Hill settlement, all of which are intended to be connected to Central and Western Jerusalem by the Jerusalem Light Rail. Furthermore, the rail line will only serve one Palestinian neighbourhood, despite the fact that the rail line will be crossing through occupied Palestinian territory, drawing into question who the rail service is intended to benefit.
The answer seems clear – the rail service is intended to serve primarily Jewish Israelis and Israeli settlers, and will exclude many Palestinians from its service, highlighting Israel’s true intentions for the eastern portion of the city. In fact, just yesterday a headline on Haaretz declared that in an effort to re-start stalled peace talks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will tout a 10-month settlement freeze to “save” east Jerusalem. The freeze unsurprisingly will not include construction in east Jerusalem.
In recent months the Jerusalem Light Rail project has encountered strong resistance and many delays, including immense pressure from the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement which is pressuring the projects two main investors, Veolia and Alstom to pull out of the project on the basis that their involvement violates international law. This pressure has cost Veolia a purported $7 billion in contracts, and the company is apparently trying to sell its shares to Israeli bus operator Dan.
Despite this, Alstom has recently stated they have no intention of pulling out of the project and construction will move forward as planned. So as construction of the light rail carries on, so do house demolitions, evictions and settlement growth, all of which leave the status of east Jerusalem as the future Palestinian capital uncertain.
Britain Eakin is a Writer for the Media and Information Program at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mip@miftah.org.
